Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Madam Speaker: Members will already be aware that a wooden moulding fell from the ceiling of our Chamber during the night. This morning, our staff checked to see whether there were similar defects in any other mouldings, and one further moulding has been removed. [Interruption.] It is not very funny, actually. I have been advised by our experts that they are as sure as they can be that it is safe for us to continue sitting here. Over the weekend, steps will be taken to ensure that all the mouldings are screwed into the ceiling joists, but I am confident that everything will be in good order again by the time that we sit on Monday. We shall now proceed with our usual business.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Student Loans

Mr. Chidgey: What plans he has to extend student loan provision to students studying part time on equivalent undergraduate courses. [24179]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): There are no current plans to extend student loans to part-time students, most of whom are employed and are therefore able to support themselves. However, for the first time, we are making significant sums available to part timers through access funds.

Mr. Chidgey: Given that the Government have accepted the Tories' spending plans for the next two years, can the Minister explain why he is unable to give an assurance that part-time students should be able to access student loans in the life of this Parliament, given that the Government's Teaching and Higher Education Bill, currently in another place, makes exactly that provision?

Dr. Howells: The Bill makes that provision because we have a great deal of sympathy with the evidence that is emerging on behalf of part-time students, and we are ensuring that they are adequately provided for so that they may undertake and complete the courses that they desire to complete. However, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that his plan—which, of course, will once again be paid for out of the magic penny that the Liberals

are always spouting on about—will result in payments being made that will be a deadweight because, as he must have heard me say, most part-time students are already employed. That is why Lord Dearing did not recommend such a measure in his inquiry into further education.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome the Minister's assurance on the widening of access to loans, but may I ask that the Department continues to keep the matter sympathetically under review? I draw his attention especially to the increasing numbers of part-time students who are studying in the new universities, and to the courses that they are fulfilling. It is important—especially given the many women on such courses—that access to, and encouragement to serve on, those courses, continues.

Dr. Howells: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the important part that part-time study plays in lifelong learning. That is why we have doubled access funds to £36 million and extended provision to accommodate part-timers.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware of efforts by the Select Committee on Education and Employment to find ways of accelerating and increasing the amount of genuinely private funding that might be used to fund student loans? Does he agree that, if such efforts were successful, more money might be provided for access funds and for higher education? Will the Department for Education and Employment undertake to support any such efforts?

Dr. Howells: We shall always examine such evidence and we are keen for private enterprise to play a much greater part in ensuring that its employees receive every opportunity for education at all levels. The best firms in the country are already doing so.

University for Industry

Dr. Whitehead: If he will make a statement on the progress of the establishment of the university for industry. [24180]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have made substantial progress with the help of the working group chaired by David Brown of Motorola Ltd., and we shall produce further details in the forthcoming White Paper on lifelong learning and the prospectus for the university for industry, which will be published in March.

Dr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the right degree of support, the university for industry will rank alongside that other achievement of a Labour Government, the Open university? Can he assure me that the creation of the essential starting point, the multi-media learning network, is being satisfactorily progressed by the design and implementation advisory group?

Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. The university for industry will make a major contribution to equipping our nation with the skills required to sustain growth with stable inflation, and to do so in a new century, when new


skills and the ability to take advantage of information and communication technology will be at the forefront of our prosperity and our ability to compete.

Higher Education Reform

Mr. Garnier: How much his Department has spent on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. [24181]

Dr. Howells: The Department has spent some £534,000 on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. That covers our response to the report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education under Sir Ron Dearing—Lord Dearing—and the new arrangements for financial support for students in higher education.

Mr. Garnier: How does the Under-Secretary justify a reform that will cost the poorest students £2,000 a year more than better-off students during an academic year?

Dr. Howells: We undertook to inform everybody who needed the information about the details and the truth of the new funding arrangements that we intend to put in place. We think that that is a proper expenditure of money. The evidence of the success of our approach is seen in the rising number of applications for undergraduate places for next year.

Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that some students are labouring under the misinformation and scaremongering spread, in part, from those on the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that that small sum spent to tell the truth, so that students are not put off doing courses, is money well spent?

Dr. Howells: It is interesting that the nature of that scaremongering and misinformation that has come so often from some quarters is changing rapidly. I understand that the shadow Secretary of State for Education last night informed the audience at a debate on the future of higher education that he thought that our proposals for student loans would be much fairer than the arrangements put in place by the previous Government.

Mr. Don Foster: Is not the only reason why the Minister has had to spend so much money on advertising details of his proposals to students, the Government's hasty and ill-conceived response to the Dearing commission report? Does he agree that the proposals will do nothing to improve the funding crisis left by the previous Government because of the failure to passport the additional money from student fees to higher education, and that we shall end up with a higher education system that has two tiers—ivy league universities and bargain basement universities?

Dr. Howells: No, I do not agree. I am proud that this Government had the guts to make a decision—something that is not a characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has not the publicity served its purpose well, and have not potential students responded?

The applications to Anglia polytechnic university in my constituency are up on this time last year, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is right. Applications are rising quickly. The Jeremiahs and doom-predictors have been proved wrong. Students know that a degree brings them great opportunities in life and enables them to earn more when they are working. That is what we intend higher education to do. We shall see that the money is in place so that every student with the qualifications to take up those places can do so.

Mr. Welsh: What plans does the Department have to pay the fourth-year tuition fees of students undertaking an honours course at a Scottish university, thus ending the present discrimination against English and Welsh students? Is the Minister aware of the harmful effect of his policy on university policy?

Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him so on several occasions, we are urging Scottish universities to recognise the great worth of two-year A-level courses in England and Wales, and allow students with good grades into the second year of four-year degree courses at Scottish universities. That is a perfectly good arrangement, and we shall try to ensure that it works properly.

Mr. Dorrell: Is not the truth that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was seeking that the student from a high-income background will pay an extra £3,000 for a three-year degree course under the Government's proposals, while a student from a low-income background will pay an extra £5,265 for the same three-year degree course? Will the Minister now answer the question posed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier): why do the Government believe that low-income students should face a steeper increase in the cost of their degrees than their contemporaries from more privileged backgrounds?

Dr. Howells: The shadow Secretary of State does not understand that students from low-income families will not be required to pay tuition fees. He adds up the sums in an incredibly idiosyncratic way. That is why he keeps jumping up and down in his seat. The money will be there for every student who wishes to take up a place at university and who requires it. The payback arrangements for such loans are good. People will take up such loans, and the proof of that is in the present application rates.

Qualifications

Mr. Rendel: What plans he has to consolidate 14 to 19-year-olds' qualifications into a single framework. [24182]

Mr. Blunkett: My remit letter to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority asked it to develop our manifesto commitment to a coherent and high-quality national framework for 14 to 19-year-olds. Our consultation paper, "Qualifying for success", which progresses that manifesto commitment and the earlier Dearing report on 16 to 19-year-olds, will be reported on by the QCA in February.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we should establish a parity of esteem


between academic and vocational qualifications? If so, will he confirm that the present divide in the gold standard between A-levels and advanced national vocational qualifications is destroying that parity of esteem, and it would be better to combine the two?

Mr. Skinner: He knows all about it—he went to Eton.

Mr. Blunkett: I cannot top my hon. Friend's answer.
There is undoubtedly a divide in Britain between vocational and academic qualifications, which is reflected in the way in which people too often disparage industrial and business routes. Therefore, we are committed to providing a high-quality, over-arching certificate, on which we are consulting, which retains the gold standard of the A-level, extends its breadth and provides people, through vocational qualifications, with an equally credible and high-quality route for achieving the same goals.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have inherited a real problem from the previous Administration as a result of the pressure on young people from training and enterprise councils—many of which are trying to do a good job, like my own in Calderdale and Kirklees, which is doing an excellent job? Over the years, young people have been pushed towards fast training that leads to qualifications so that TECs get their money, and away from longer-term, more expensive training, such as the new apprenticeship schemes? Can we do something about that quickly?

Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to say that the new standards council that we are establishing, and our review of NVQs, will help us to ensure that high-quality qualifications are available whichever route people take post-16, as will our commitment in the legislation presently in the other place to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to education and training in order to gain a qualification while at work, so that they, too, can take their place in the labour market of the future.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What representations he has received concerning the activities of training and enterprise councils. [24183]

Dr. Howells: I regularly receive representations about TECs on a variety of issues.

Mrs. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are in danger of giving the impression that they are so blinkered by the limited welfare-to-work programme—money and priority are only for that—that they are squeezing out all other topics? Small and medium enterprises in my area tell me that their problems are recruitment and skills shortages—something that the Surrey business link identified in its latest survey. Will he particularly commend the Surrey TEC, which has involved more than 1,000 companies in its modern apprenticeship programme?

Dr. Howells: Although I have no hesitation in congratulating the Surrey TEC on its achievements—and they are great achievements; more than half the new starts

in Surrey are modern apprenticeships, and that is a model that every TEC should follow—I have to dispute the assertion that the right hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question. This year, there will be 72,000 new, modern apprenticeship starts—10,000 more than under the present arrangements. We value them, and want them to expand and continue.

Mr. Derek Foster: I invite my hon. Friend to reconsider the relationship between TECs and regional development agencies. At the risk of offending his national sensitivity, may I suggest that he follows the Scottish model? Would it not enable the RDA to pursue a coherent economic development strategy, including a skills strategy, within the regions?

Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend raises some interesting issues. We are looking at every possible option. We want our training to be the best in the world, and for that we must have the most efficient means of brokering, commissioning and paying for training. I am interested in what he says. I shall look at it carefully. We are looking at the models not only in Scotland but in Wales, where they seem to work quite well.

Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members were told this morning that training and enterprise councils are required to keep approximately £70 million in reserve, but they would like to keep £170 million in reserve? Yet, in a written answer to me today, he accepted that more than £278 million is in reserve, which he says will be used for Government priorities. Will he assure the House and the TECs that that money will not be directed simply to bolstering the new deal but will be used for the benefit of TECs in their areas?

Dr. Howells: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that that money will be used for the best possible projects, which will strengthen competitiveness and the employment infrastructure in the areas that the TECs serve. I want it to be spent on an array of new projects. We have some interesting ones in mind. Perhaps, over a cup of tea, I could talk to him about them.

New Deal Pathfinders

Mr. Dawson: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in pathfinder areas. [24184]

Mr. Blunkett: I commend all those who have involved with the 12 pathfinder projects for the new deal. In the first three weeks alone, 5,300 young people were invited for interview. Three thousand young people entered the gateway, of whom half have been placed for jobs, and hundreds of young people who are not yet entitled to enter the new deal have presented themselves at jobcentres wishing to be part of it. That is a tremendous start, of which we can all be proud.

Mr. Dawson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging response about this excellent scheme.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that young people entering the new deal scheme will be offered a real choice of quality training and work placement? Can he further assure me that vulnerable young people, who are in so


much need of this scheme, will receive the counselling and emotional support that they require to enable them to continue in ways that were previously denied to them>?

Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to give that assurance. The gateway, with basic social and educational skills provisions, the specific advisers and mentors for the young people concerned, and the commitment that every young person will get education and training to an approved qualification, all demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that this is not just a makeweight scheme but a real programme that equips young people to take their place in the labour market and helps to meet the skills shortage referred to earlier.

Mr. Rowe: Have the pathfinder areas thrown up for the Secretary of State the people who are paying the real cost of the new deal? Will he explain to older people in my constituency, many of whom have made 200, 300 or 400 applications for jobs, why they are now told that their job clubs are to be cut back because of the costs of the new deal? Given that unemployment is falling, is not the money originally set aside for the new deal more than ample? How does he explain to my constituents that they are being sacrificed to the Chancellor's need to build up a war chest to win the next election?

Mr. Blunkett: I should like to inform the hon. Gentleman's constituents why they have been unemployed for so long under a regime that the hon. Gentleman helped to prop up. I should like to explain to young people in his area how we shall ensure that they do not become the long-term unemployed adults of the future and that they have the opportunity that has been denied to middle-aged people. I should like to explain, as the Chancellor said, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights said on 5 January, how we shall extend the scheme to older unemployed workers, giving them the qualifications and skills that they need.
Above all, we shall ensure that no young person ever again faces, at the age of 18, the prospect of not having a job year after year. They must learn to get out of bed, get themselves into a job and earn their own living for the future rather than depend on the state.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Has it yet been possible to evaluate the adequacy of the allocation for the gateway period? Will my right hon. Friend keep that matter under review, as £260 for up to four months seems a small amount?

Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall keep the matter under review. It is important that the gateway is a quality entry into the new deal and that we let no one down in terms of evaluating the first 12 pathfinder programmes. It was appropriate to pilot the programme first to ensure that we learn the lessons and apply them when we roll the programme out for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Willetts: Let me return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Does the Secretary of State not recognise that, in the past week, many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a letter from their local employment service telling the same story about the cuts

in job club placements and in job plan workshops for people who are not eligible for the new deal? Is it not clear that there will be two different categories of unemployed people: those with the extra expenditure of the new deal; and more than a million people who will receive less assistance in the future than they received in the past?

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman's last assertion is incorrect. A higher proportion of adult unemployed will have access to job clubs and similar measures than is the case now. Unemployment dropped by 28 per cent. in the past year; job clubs are being reduced by only 15 per cent.; and the take-up at job clubs has been only 87 per cent. With the 750 remaining job clubs, it is therefore possible to do a better job more effectively and in the best interests of unemployed people, so that they get a job rather than attend a club.

Welfare to Work

Mr. McAllion: What recent representations he has received relating to the Government's programme for welfare into work for 18 to 25-year-olds. [24185]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): We continue to receive many supportive comments and suggestions, including from businesses, the voluntary sector, training providers and, most importantly, from young people, whose reaction to the introduction of the new deal in the pathfinder areas has been very positive.

Mr. McAllion: All the agencies that work with the young unemployed agree about the new deal's huge potential to make a real difference, but there is widespread criticism of the element of compulsion within the scheme. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by insisting on compulsion, he is sending out a message that the new deal will be done to the unemployed rather than for the unemployed? Could he not put his faith in the genuine quality of the options being offered as a guarantee of the new deal's success? The tiny minority who say no to offers of genuine help need more help, not more compulsion.

Mr. Smith: We have had the answer, in that more than 3,000 gateway interviews have been conducted and we have not had to initiate sanctions in a single case. Moreover, more than 500 young people have volunteered to go on the new deal programme early. So far, all the evidence from the pathfinder interviews is that young people understand very well the difference that the new deal will make for them and for their prospects of employment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: How does the Minister square his pre-election pledge of getting 250,000 young people off the unemployment register with the fact that only 122,000 people are currently on that register? If he accepts those figures, will he tell us why the Chancellor has allocated a disproportionately large amount of resources to getting young people off the unemployment register under the new deal? Younger people are more mobile, better educated and more able to get a job. It is the older, long-term unemployed who need the resources.

Mr. Smith: I make no apology for the attention that this Government, unlike the Conservative Government,


have given to the particular needs of the young unemployed. Unemployment levels among young people are twice those in the rest of the work force. A terrible price is paid as a result of persistent unemployment among the young. It damages people's lives and the lives of their families, and leads to the corrosion of communities. The statistics show not only that 120,000 young people have been out of work for more than six months, but that 15,000 pass the six-month threshold every month.

Mr. Kidney: What role does my right hon. Friend envisage for collaborative partnerships between employers and further education colleges in delivering the quality training that is such an important component of welfare to work?

Mr. Smith: A very important role. The hallmark of the new deal is the provision of quality training in every option, so that young people gain the recognised qualifications that will not only get them into a job, but will help then to progress in employment. One of the most exciting and innovative aspects of the new deal is that colleges and other training providers will work in partnership with employers to open up opportunities to young people who have previously been denied them.

National Curriculum

Mr. Fearn: What plans he has to introduce a new national curriculum for primary schools within the next five years. [24186]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We plan to introduce a revised national curriculum from September 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for State announced plans on 13 January to give primary schools more time to focus on literacy and numeracy for the next two academic years.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that, in the past few years art, music and sport have been squeezed out of the curriculum? Are there any plans to bring those subjects back into the curriculum? I visit quite a few primary schools, and they all say that those subjects have been squeezed out because of the limited time allowed in the curriculum.

Ms Morris: I am not sure that those subjects have been squeezed out: they have not been dropped from the national curriculum. Those and the other core and foundation subjects have a place, and are taught in schools. Long may that remain so, because the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred are important, and are part of a broad and balanced curriculum for our children.

Helen Jones: Does the Minister agree with me and with the primary school teachers in my constituency who responded to the White Paper that the primary curriculum has been overloaded and prescriptive? They wanted more flexibility, and more time to concentrate on literacy and numeracy, which is what the Secretary of State's proposed in his recent announcement.

Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the message that we have received from teachers

and parents. Parents made it clear in their response to the White Paper that their overriding priorities were, quite rightly, literacy and numeracy. The proposal that my right hon. Friend announced last week will enable teachers to exercise their professional judgment. In delivering that broad and balanced curriculum, they will now have the freedom to concentrate on literacy and numeracy. If those skills are taught before the end of key stage 2, children will have greater access to the broad curriculum when they reach secondary school.

Mr. Dorrell: I agree that it is desirable for the national curriculum to focus on the essential core, as was always the intention, but why will the Government not publish the results of key stage 2 tests at the end of children's primary education: tests against that curriculum? Does the Minister recollect that, last March, the Secretary of State pledged a future Labour Government to national publication of the test results—not local publication by local education authorities, but national publication by the Department? Why are the Government breaking that pledge?

Ms Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I thought that he was going to congratulate the Government on publishing key stage 2 test results a full two months earlier than his party did when in office.
The results have been published locally for parents—

Mr. Dorrell: Nationally?

Ms Morris: They will be published nationally, so that everyone will be able to see how local authorities and schools are performing. I understand that the local authority figures will be published next week, and that the others will be published when they are available. We always said that they would be put on the internet.
The key point, however, is that parents, who have a right to know how local authorities and schools are performing, received the information two full months earlier than they did under the last Government—and next year they will receive more information, even earlier.

School Attendance

Dr. Stoate: What measures the Government are taking to ensure that children of school age attend school regularly. [24189]

Ms Estelle Morris: All pupils need to attend school regularly if standards are to be raised and if young people are to gain an adequate grounding for higher education, training or employment. We are supporting locally devised projects to a value of £22 million in 119 English local education authorities under the improving attendance and behaviour category of the standards fund for 1998–99. We are also consulting widely on detailed new guidance for schools and LEAs on attendance issues.

Dr. Stoate: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that those who are away from school without good reason can become marginalised? How may the new social exclusion unit be able to help the problem?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who leave school without qualifications are excluded from


so much else in life. Some of the saddest figures relate to those who become offenders and appear in court while they are of school age. Six in every 10 of them have been persistent truants or excluded from school.
That is the cost of poor attendance and truancy, and that is why dealing with those problems is such a high priority for the Government—and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that dealing with them will be one of the first tasks of the social exclusion unit. It will address the problems as they have never been addressed before, in a multi-disciplinary way, drawing together the efforts and resources of a number of Departments. We look forward to receiving an early report from the unit, so that we can make progress.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the governors and teachers of Kinnerley primary school, which came top of the league in Shropshire this year? That included attendance figures. Will she ask how on earth the teachers and governors of Shropshire schools—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister would pay attention and listen to my question.
How on earth will teachers and governors deliver a similar quality of education in Shropshire next year with 450 fewer teachers? That shortage has been caused by cuts of £10 million, and the Government's swingeing shift of resources from shire counties to inner cities.

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman's closing comments are a strange reflection on a Government who have just put more extra money into education than his party's Government ever managed to do. I am happy to congratulate the school in his constituency, and all the schools elsewhere that take local action with well-devised projects to reduce truancy and ensure good attendance.

School Security

Mr. Edwards: What measures have been taken to enhance school security for 1998–99. [24191]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are making available an extra £22 million in 1998–99 to improve security in schools in England.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of the numbers?

Mr. Byers: Absolutely, yes; it is two times 11, I think. That sum is in addition to the £6 million provided through our new deal for schools.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that a secure environment is essential for learning and for teaching, and that vandalism is far too common in our schools? May I assure him that all the schools in my constituency in Monmouthshire will greatly welcome the Government's commitment to allocate additional resources and specifically to improve school security?

Mr. Byers: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's questions. This year, Monmouth has received some additional resources to help with school security. We have to put the interests of children and school staff first, which is why it is vital for the Government to ensure that they have a secure environment during school hours.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be even better if seven times £8 million pounds were spent to help secure our schools. Do the Government have any plans to encourage local education authorities to visit some of the schools in their area to test security? It is all very well for schools to make an assessment of their own security needs, but parents would be reassured if an independent assessment of schools' security needs were made urgently.

Mr. Byers: This is an important matter, about which I am sure all hon. Members are concerned. The working group on school security is still considering the matter, and I will draw to its attention the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that parents feel confident about the school environment in which their children spend many hours a day.

Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend recognise the particular problems faced by schools in rural and semi-rural areas? Although they may not have the same order of problems, they still—because of isolation—need to be secure. Will he ensure that moneys reach the more rural schools? Anything he can do to ensure that that happens will be welcomed.

Mr. Byers: I assure my hon. Friend that, when we make our decisions on allocating money for school security under phase 2 of our new deal for schools—which will have a school security element—we will be conscious not only of what are perhaps to many people the more obvious needs of schools in more urban and built-up areas but of the specific needs of isolated rural schools. All schools need a secure environment. Although it is important that schools do not become fortresses, we have to get the balance right and ensure that our children receive education in a secure and safe environment.

School Repairs (Lewes)

Mr. Baker: What plans he has to help tackle the backlog of repairs to schools within the Lewes constituency. [24192]

Mr. Byers: As a result of the Budget statement on 2 July 1997, we expect that an additional £2 billion will be spent through our new deal for schools. Moreover, in 1997–99, East Sussex local education authority will receive a capital allowance of over £21 million to support building improvements.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that answer. However, does the Minister realise that, after 18 years of underfunding by the previous Conservative Government, schools in my constituency—indeed, across East Sussex—have a huge backlog of basic maintenance and repairs? Although the news that he has given us is welcome, the problem will not be solved. Does he realise


that many small village schools have real, specific and considerable needs even though they are rarely at the top of action lists? I am thinking of village schools in my constituency such as, for example, Wivelsfield, Newick and Upper Dicker. What comfort can he offer to them? Will he press the Prime Minister and his other colleagues to lift capping, so that local authorities can do the job that they know they want to do?

Mr. Byers: The very important element of our new deal for schools funding is that it is making grant available to local authorities and to schools for building purposes. As it is grant, it will not count against a local authority's cap, making the capping regime irrelevant in the new deal. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that 15 schools in his own constituency are covered by East Sussex's application for the second phase of new deal funding. If that application were to be successful, it would make a very real difference to the quality of education that children in his constituency are receiving. We are confident that, with the new deal phase 2 for our schools, we will provide a quality learning environment, which we believe will play a vital part in driving up standards in our schools.

Mrs. Browning: Given that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) has raised specific questions about local education authority schools such as those in East Sussex, what is the Minister's response to the letter sent only yesterday to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, who lists East Sussex as an LEA threatening cuts? The letter lists other LEAs, many of them Labour-controlled, that will not be spending all their additional allocation on education and schools, and states:
the additional £835 million for education in next year's Budget is not going to find its way into schools, despite the Government's declared wishes.
We hear words, words and words from the Government, but education is not a high priority in Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled LEAs up and down the country.

Mr. Byers: I join the hon. Lady in condemning East Sussex for failing to pass on the money that it has been given by the Labour Government, which we believe should be spent in the schools of East Sussex. However, I am sure that she will be aware that East Sussex is under Conservative control, so she needs to make representations to her political colleagues in East Sussex and urge them to ensure that the money that the Labour Government have given East Sussex—

Mr. Ian Bruce: No, they have not given it.

Mr. Byers: They have given it. East Sussex has the money, but Conservative councillors there are refusing to pass it on. New deal funding is grant so it does not count against the local authority's cap.

Out-of-school Child Care Initiative

Mr. Gapes: What assessment he has made of the out-of-school child care initiative. [24194]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): In 1997, the Government commissioned a third evaluation of the out-of-school child care initiative to assess the extent to which schemes have become financially viable and to examine the factors affecting their viability. The report was published on 22 January and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

Mr. Gapes: I welcome the Government's commitment to double funding for the out-of-school child care initiative, but can my hon. Friend assure me that more efforts will be made to ensure that resources reach the poorest and most disadvantaged communities with the worst deprivation?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend expresses his characteristic concern for the most disadvantaged of his constituents. The previous Government would support provision under the out-of-school child care initiative only when a scheme could demonstrate that it would be self-sustaining within a short period. Only this morning, I discussed that and other child care issues with representatives of training and enterprise councils. They want more attention to be given to developing local capacity in deprived areas over longer time scales and to supporting parents in low-income households to meet the costs of child care. I fully recognise the force of what my hon. Friend and the TECs have said.

New Deal Pathfinder (Black Country)

Mr. Cranston: What reports he has received on the progress of the new deal pathfinder in the black country. [24195]

Mr. Andrew Smith: I have received weekly reports on the new deal pathfinders, including the one in the black country. I was pleased to visit Dudley last month. It is early days, but the programme has made an encouraging start, and I thank my hon. Friend for his active involvement locally.

Mr. Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that last Friday I visited Dudley zoo, which has just taken on one of my constituents, a young man who had been unemployed for seven years. How can we further involve small and medium-sized enterprises such as Dudley zoo in the new deal?

Mr. Smith: When I visited Dudley, I met representatives of business, including small businesses. There will be an active marketing campaign, locally and nationally, to get as many employers as possible signed up. We are also working through the sectoral business associations and bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses have pledged their support to ensure that as many small businesses as possible are involved. My hon. Friend recounted the story of his constituent, and such instances bring home just what a difference the new deal will make to people's lives. That is why we need it and why it is such a good programme.

Mr. Baldry: Does the Minister accept that unemployment rates in Dudley, as elsewhere in the


country, are coming down fast, as the Secretary of State said recently? As a consequence of Conservative policies, unemployment fell by 28 per cent. over the past year. Is not the real problem in Dudley and elsewhere that employers are increasingly facing skills shortages? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Department will keep under review the amounts spent on the new deal and whether some of that money could be better used by TECs to help with more skills training? Otherwise we shall have the ludicrous situation of money being spent where it is not needed and not spent where it is needed.

Mr. Smith: Despite the welcome fall in unemployment, far too many people are unemployed—especially young people—and for everyone who remains unemployed, that unemployment is 100 per cent. They need all the help that the new deal will provide. We are implementing the right programme at the right time for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives. When the labour market is tightening and firms are finding it difficult to recruit workers with the skills that they need, a programme that equips young people with training and skills so that they can help to fill those vacancies will not only benefit the young unemployed but will be good for business.

Special Needs

Mr. Paul Clark: What steps will be taken to ensure that young people with exceptional needs are able to enter the new deal early if they choose to do so. [24196]

Mr. Alan Howarth: We are committed to ensuring that the new deal meets the individual needs of all young people, including those with special needs, who will be offered the opportunity to join it early. That includes people with disabilities, those with literacy or numeracy problems, lone parents, ex-offenders and others at a particular disadvantage.

Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The scheme that is being developed to deliver the new deal in the Medway towns will ensure that those opportunities exist. Special advisers to the scheme through the gateways opportunity, including Members of Parliament who are members of the planning team, will experience some of those opportunities. That is why I cannot wait to join the Army in the woods for a 36-hour survival course to develop my motivation and team skills. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new deal has given opportunities at a local level—that is the important point—to build strong, wide-reaching partnerships involving the private and voluntary sectors, the Employment Service and the public sector to deliver the training and skills that our young people require for the 21st century?

Mr. Howarth: After his magnificent result at the general election, my hon. Friend should be offering survival courses. He may receive applications from Conservative Members who are already panicking at the thought of the next election. I am delighted by the quality of partnership that is being developed for the new deal in

the Medway towns. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his commitment, to Linda Russell, who has led the process for the Employment Service, and to all the businesses, TECs, local authorities and voluntary organisations that have responded so positively to the Government's challenge to give better support to unemployed people.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister was clearly the first person in the Labour party to benefit from the new deal. I am glad that he is being less aggressive in response to questions on the new deal. Members of Parliament have received letters from the Employment Service telling us what is happening. We are grateful for that, but we are panic-stricken because the Employment Service is dismantling itself before the new deal has come in. It will be needed to help the most difficult cases to come off the unemployment register. Will the Minister please look again at the cuts to the Employment Service currently being announced?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is part of the old deal. Unemployment is 28 per cent. lower than a year ago. It must be sensible to scale back certain provision against that background. Funding per person is largely unchanged. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that there is a sensible case for what we are doing given that job clubs are only being used to 87 per cent. of capacity. However, where local partnerships think it appropriate, more job club places can be provided. Employment Service district managers are consulting Members of Parliament and locally. It would be preferable for Members to respond constructively rather than using the opportunity for opportunistic political point scoring.

Mr. Allan: Does the Minister recognise the concerns expressed by many in our ethnic minority communities, which traditionally suffer disproportionately high unemployment, that their young people will have difficulty gaining access to the high-quality employment option under the new deal? Does he recognise that such concerns are often fuelled by scepticism as a result of poor experiences on schemes under the previous Administration? Does he have any plans to deal with such issues?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the grievous reality of unemployment among members of ethnic minorities—particularly young people. Unemployment among people from ethnic minorities is running at twice that among white people—15 per cent. as against about 7 per cent. Unemployment is higher among young people across the range of ethnic minorities. For young black people, unemployment is running at 34 per cent. The most chilling statistic is that, among black men in London aged between 16 and 24, unemployment is 45 per cent. The previous Government left behind a shameful situation.
We are involving ethnic minority organisations at every point in the new deal. We have introduced ethnic


monitoring to examine what barriers to success there may be for young people from ethnic minorities. We are, of course, monitoring very closely the outcome so that we can respond sensitively and urgently to this very important challenge.

Regional Aid

Mr. Barnes: What representations he has received recently from the alliance for regional aid; and if he will make a statement. [24197]

Mr. Andrew Smith: I met representatives of the alliance for regional aid in August last year. We discussed the reform of the European structural funds and the criteria for their allocation. The Government are seeking arrangements which are fair, affordable, efficient and durable, and which take due account of United Kingdom regional interests.

Mr. Barnes: The alliance for regional aid is worried that £1,000 million a year, which we have been receiving from the European regional development fund under objective 1 and objective 2 assistance, may begin to disappear. One of the factors involved is the unemployment figures that are presented to the European Union. We still operate on the fiddled method that the Conservatives introduced. It must therefore be made clear to the EU that unemployment is higher than the official record shows. We might need to adjust the figures to show that that is so.

Mr. Smith: The Government have been making the point about the importance of accurate unemployment statistics. We are seeking to re-establish public credibility and confidence in unemployment figures, which were so shamefully undermined by successive changes and fiddles when the Conservatives were in government. The review has properly been conducted by the Office for National Statistics at arm's length from the Government precisely so that it could not be subject to any charge of political interference or manipulation—nor has it been. My hon. Friend and the House can expect an announcement from the Office for National Statistics in the very near future. In the meantime, the Government will continue to fight for a fair deal for the United Kingdom regions in our negotiations with Europe.

Literacy and Numeracy

Mr. Ivan Lewis: What steps he plans to take to ensure that schools are able to timetable for teaching an hour a day of literacy and numeracy. [24198]

Mr. Llwyd: How many representations he has received on his recent proposals for more school time to be devoted to teaching numeracy and literacy, and if he will make a statement. [24199]

Ms Estelle Morris: We announced earlier this month that schools will have time to devote an hour each day to literacy and to numeracy. From September, primary schools will no longer be required to follow the current prescribed programmes of study in the national curriculum subjects of art, design and technology, geography, history, music and PE. We have also published our plans to free teachers from unnecessary bureaucracy and give them more time to teach the basics.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Since 1 May she has made it clear that we shall demand the highest standards from our schools, but also that we shall give our teachers and governors the tools with which to deliver such standards. In the context of literacy and numeracy, books are an important element in the ability to deliver high standards. What plans do we have to increase access to and use of books in our schools?

Ms Morris: The whole House will have been pleased to hear the announcement made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the Government are to provide an additional £23 million for books in schools. That will mean that most schools will receive £1,000 extra to spend on books. When we add that to the £59 million already put into the literacy strategy, we see that the Government are taking action to ensure that we raise standards in the basics of literacy and numeracy. That will be welcomed by all schools and all parents.

Mr. Llwyd: Bearing in mind the present low morale in the teaching profession, will the hon. Lady assure the House that, before the changes are introduced, there will be wide consultation with the profession, in order to allow those changes to work? The move is surely right and proper; none the less, it should be implemented in a way that is comfortable and practicable for schools and teachers.

Ms Morris: We shall indeed consult on the proposed changes over the next few months. I know that my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning will also raise morale in classrooms. It shows that the Government are giving teachers the tools to do the job. They are essential partners in our crusade to raise standards, and I know that they will welcome today's announcement

Bloody Sunday

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the events in Northern Ireland on 30 January 1972, which has become known as Bloody Sunday.
The facts that are undisputed are well known. On 30 January 1972, during a disturbance in Londonderry following a civil rights march, shots were fired by the British Army. Thirteen people were killed and another 13 were wounded, one of whom subsequently died. The day after the incident, the then Prime Minister set up a public inquiry under the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery.
Lord Widgery produced a report within 11 weeks of the day. His conclusions included the following: that shots had been fired at the soldiers before they started the firing that led to the casualties; that, for the most part, the soldiers acted as they did because they thought their standing orders justified it; and that although there was no proof that any of the deceased had been shot while handling a firearm or bomb, there was a strong suspicion that some had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon.
The time scale within which Lord Widgery produced his report meant that he was not able to consider all the evidence that might have been available. For example, he did not receive any evidence from the wounded who were still in hospital, and he did not consider individually substantial numbers of eye-witness accounts provided to his inquiry in the early part of March 1972.
Since the report was published, much new material has come to light about the events of that day. That material includes new eye-witness accounts, new interpretation of ballistic material and new medical evidence.
In 1992, the then Prime Minister said in a letter to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, that those shot should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives. I reaffirm that today.
Last year, the families of those killed provided the previous Government with a new dossier on the events of Bloody Sunday. The Irish Government also sent this Government a detailed assessment that analysed the new material and Lord Widgery's findings in the light of all the material available.
I want to place on the record our strongest admiration for the way in which our security forces have responded over the years to terrorism in Northern Ireland. They set an example to the world of restraint combined with effectiveness, given the dangerous circumstances in which they are called on to operate. Young men and women daily risk their lives protecting the lives of others and upholding the rule of law, carrying out the task that we have laid upon them. Lessons have, of course, been learned over many years—in some cases, painful lessons. But the support of the Government and the House for our armed forces has been and remains unshakeable.
There have been many victims of violence in Northern Ireland before and since Bloody Sunday. More than 3,000 people, civilians as well as soldiers, police and prison officers, have lost their lives in the past 26 years. It may

be asked why we should pay such attention to one event. We do not forget or ignore all the other attacks, all the innocent deaths, all the victims of bloody terrorism.
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, a former permanent secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, is currently considering a suitable way in which to commemorate the victims of violence. In particular, the sacrifice of those many members of the security forces, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who lost their lives doing their duty, will never be forgotten by this Government, just as it was not forgotten by the previous Government. The pain of those left behind is no less than the pain of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday.
Bloody Sunday was different because, where the state's own authorities are concerned, we must be as sure as we can of the truth, precisely because we pride ourselves on our democracy and respect for the law, and on the professionalism and dedication of our security forces.
This has been a very difficult issue. I have re-read Lord Widgery's report and looked at the new material. I have consulted my colleagues most closely concerned. We have considered very carefully whether it is appropriate now to have a fresh inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. I should emphasise that such a new inquiry can be justified only if an objective examination of the material now available gives grounds for believing that the events of that day should be looked at afresh, and the conclusions of Lord Widgery re-examined.
I have been strongly advised, and I believe, that there are indeed grounds for such a further inquiry. We believe that the weight of material now available is such that the events require re-examination. We believe that the only course that will lead to public confidence in the results of any further investigation is to set up a full-scale judicial inquiry into Bloody Sunday.
We have therefore decided to set up an inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The inquiry will have the power to call witnesses and obtain production of papers. As required by the Act, a resolution will be needed to set up the inquiry. That resolution will be tabled later today in my name, in the following terms:
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30 January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day.
Lord Saville of Newdigate, a Law Lord, has agreed to chair a tribunal of three. The other two members are likely to be from the Commonwealth.
It is not possible to say now exactly how long the inquiry will take, but it should be allowed the time necessary to cover thoroughly and completely all the evidence now available. It is for the tribunal to decide how far its proceedings will be open, but the Act requires them to be held in public unless there are special countervailing considerations.
The hearings are likely to be partly here and partly in Northern Ireland, but, again, that is largely for the tribunal. Questions of immunity from prosecution for those giving evidence to the inquiry will be for the tribunal to consider in individual cases, and to refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney—General as necessary. The inquiry will report its conclusions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and our intention is that they will be made public.
Let me make it clear that the aim of the inquiry is not to accuse individuals or institutions, or to invite fresh recriminations, but to establish the truth about what happened on that day, so far as that can be achieved at 26 years' distance. It will not be easy, and we are all well aware that there were particularly difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland at that time.
Bloody Sunday was a tragic day for all concerned. We must all wish that it had never happened. Our concern now is simply to establish the truth, and to close this painful chapter once and for all. Like the hon. Member for Foyle, members of the families of the victims have conducted a long campaign to that end. I have heard some of their remarks over recent years and have been struck by their dignity. Most do not want recrimination; they do not want revenge; but they want the truth.
I believe that it is in everyone's interests that the truth be established and told. That is also the way forward to the necessary reconciliation that will be such an important part of building a secure future for the people of Northern Ireland. I ask hon. Members of all parties to support our proposal for this inquiry.

Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for giving more than the usual notice of it. On behalf of the Opposition, may I echo what he has said about the work of our security forces, who have so consistently shown great courage and professionalism, often in the face of extreme danger or provocation?
I believe that it was right for my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, to say that those who died on Bloody Sunday were innocent victims of the troubles, and the Prime Minister has today reaffirmed the statement of my right hon. Friend.
Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the fact that the extensive press speculation in recent weeks that he was planning to make an immediate apology turns out to have been misinformed? Indeed, it would have been bizarre for the Prime Minister to make an apology in advance of any inquiry. As the Prime Minister has reminded us, more than 3,000 people have died in the present troubles, most of them at the hands of ruthless terrorists. Does he agree that, when it comes to discussing apologies, it would be both right and helpful to our hopes for peace to have an apology or to see some sign of contrition from terrorist murderers on both sides of the sectarian divide?
On behalf of the Opposition, may I say that we are naturally sceptical about reopening an inquiry which was conducted 25 years ago, especially since previous Governments have already carefully examined new evidence submitted to them? However, if the Prime Minister is personally satisfied—on the basis of the strong advice he has received—that genuine, fresh and compelling evidence has now been submitted which is significant enough to warrant the reopening of the inquiry, we shall accept his judgment.
Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that the members of the tribunal and all of us here—especially those of us who have never served in the armed forces—should be very careful indeed when trying to second-guess with

hindsight, and from the comfort of the House, the actions of a 19-year-old soldier under fire on the streets of Londonderry 26 years ago?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with all those points and particularly with what the right hon. Gentleman said in respect of the difficulties facing young soldiers in those circumstances, and in respect of the actions of ruthless terrorists over a number of years. The fact that there is to be an inquiry should not in any shape or form be taken as an indication of any diminution of our total condemnation of those terrorist acts and our belief that those who are responsible for them should show the remorse, apology and contrition necessary. I agree with that entirely.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point, of course there are difficulties with reopening an inquiry after this length of time, but I am personally satisfied that it is the right thing to do. In the circumstances—although there can be all sorts of debate about whether the balance of advantage politically lies in this or that direction—if the evidence is there and is compelling, and I believe it is, it should be done.

Mr. John Hume: May I express my very deep appreciation to the Prime Minister for his statement? He is very right when he underlines the terrible tragedy that that day was. I know something about it, having been the only public representative on those streets on that day. It is therefore right and proper—this is an objective that no reasonable person should oppose or could oppose—that the full truth be established about what happened on that day.
May I also thank the Prime Minister for his recognition of the enormous dignity of the families of the victims of that day in their pursuit of that objective—the truth? Let us now hope that the steps he is putting in place will finally produce the full truth and be a major part of the healing process in our divided community.

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His work in campaigning for this is especially worthy of remark, as he is one of the people who have always believed in a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble: I am sorry to have to say to the Prime Minister that I think that the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that this will be part of the healing process is likely to be misplaced. Opening old wounds like this is likely to do more harm than good.
The basic facts of the situation are known and not open to dispute. An arrest operation went wrong. The arrest operation was directed at rioters engaged in sustained rioting after an illegal republican parade. It was a pity to hear the mealy-mouthed language that the Prime Minister used about that.
I also have to point out to the Prime Minister that mistakes by the security forces have happened frequently over the years. There have been many cases where the security forces have fired on and killed innocent civilians. There have also been cases where the security forces have fired on and killed other members of the security forces. When such mistakes occur, the fault lies less with the men who have been placed in difficult circumstances than with those who have created them.
We are in favour of the truth, too. We would like the truth to come out about many things. There will be widespread scepticism about new witnesses. There will also be questions about selectivity in dealing with this incident and not others.
We have heard that the Irish Prime Minister has pressed for the inquiry. Will our Prime Minister ask him to look into the actions of his party when it connived at the creation, funding and arming of the Provisional IRA? Does the Prime Minister realise that there will be those who will use this inquiry to denigrate our armed forces? The relatives may not seek revenge, but others do.
Finally, I thank the Prime Minister for his reference to the victims of terrorism and, in particular, for his reference to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Northern Ireland Office removed the reference to the security forces from the terms of reference of the Bloomfield inquiry into victims?

The Prime Minister: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, in respect of the circumstances, that one of the difficulties is that it cannot be said—to deal directly with his point—that this is a situation in which those who were killed were engaged in illegal activity. It cannot be said, because the Widgery report itself—this is one of the reasons why I think it is important that we reconsider what happened—makes it clear in respect of many of those who were shot and killed that there is no suggestion that they were acting illegally. I went through the report myself in a great deal of detail.
In respect of the four people who were killed in the Glenfada Park flats, let me quote from Lord Widgery's conclusions on evidence. He says:
the balance of probability suggests that at the time when these four men were shot the group of civilians was not acting aggressively and that the shots were fired without justification.
That is actually in the Widgery report. This is not a set of circumstances in which one can say that there is a necessary correlation between any illegal activity that day and the people who were killed. That is one of the reasons why it is important to consider the evidence.
In respect of what the right hon. Gentleman said about terrorists and the actions of terrorists, I entirely agree, but we do not need an inquiry into Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, Hyde park and Warrington. We know who was responsible. Those were appalling acts of savagery and violence, and we condemn them. The people responsible for them should be punished to the full extent of the law.
What is important, however, is that we make sure that, in respect of matters where there has been fresh evidence given and where we have considered that carefully and come to the conclusion that that evidence genuinely warrants looking at these matters again, it would be wrong, no matter what the inconvenience or the political advantage in pushing it away, not to act according to the evidence. That is what I did, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that I did that on the basis of a serious examination of the report, the new evidence that had been submitted and a careful analysis of where it might lead. I believe that the best way of dealing with the matter is to have a proper objective reconsideration, without any preconditions as to what the outcome may be, so that the truth can be established and told.

Sir Edward Heath: I thank the Prime Minister for telling me last night that he was

going to make his announcement today. I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to carry on discussions and arguments about what in fact happened; for that, we must now await the new report.
On the right hon. Gentleman's remark that Lord Widgery produced his report quickly, I would say only that that was the demand of the House of Commons. The event took place on the Sunday; the Home Secretary announced on the Monday that the commission would be set up; and I announced the commission here on the Tuesday. The general demand was that the matter should be dealt with speedily, because members of the forces change rapidly and the House also wanted the quickest possible answers to the questions. That is the explanation.
I shall readily agree to the commission seeing any of our papers, if it so wishes. The Widgery commission saw the greater number of them—whatever it asked for, it saw. However, if there are still others that the new commission wants to see, I shall readily agree.
The Prime Minister concluded by expressing the hope that this commission will see the end of the matter. I sincerely share that hope—but it is a hope.

The Prime Minister: I do not dissent from any of that—it is a hope. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the circumstances in which Lord Widgery was asked to perform his task, although that obviously had certain consequences, which I also described in my statement, as to the evaluation of the evidence. In respect of what he said about his own co-operation, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The proposal that the Prime Minister has made has the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. I do not believe that he is being mealy-mouthed; this is a courageous decision, not least because some of the conclusions may be painful and even disturbing. I commend his remarks about the young men and women of the security services: I and many other hon. Members have seen their qualities at first hand, and anyone who has done so could not but be impressed by their maturity and bravery.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the inquiry should not become part of the peace process or a substitute for it, but should be seen as a confidence-building measure to assist the progress of that process? Does he further agree that to try to arrive at the truth after 25 years is a Herculean and probably unprecedented task, and that the tribunal will therefore require all the help it can get? Rather than deal with the question of immunity on the basis of individual cases, would it not be right to establish in principle and in advance that those who give evidence freely and frankly before the tribunal will be given immunity from subsequent civil or criminal proceedings?

The Prime Minister: On the last point, there are rules set out in the 1921 Act in respect of that matter, and it is open to the tribunal to request immunity, which the Attorney-General would be able to give. It is also the right of any people appearing in front of the tribunal not to give evidence that incriminates themselves. We certainly do not see this as an exercise in recrimination—the more help that we are given in establishing the truth, the better, so I shall certainly take on board the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
It is true that there is a 26-year time gap, but much of the process will consist of evaluating evidence that is already there and can be re-evaluated, together with the new evidence that has now been passed on to us. As for its not being part of the peace process or peace talks, that is absolutely right—it stands on its own in the end. There are arguments both ways politically and we have given careful consideration to the issues, but I hope that the House will accept from me that the decision was made because, having gone through the Widgery tribunal, having looked at all the evidence and also at some of the findings of fact made by Widgery and finally having looked at the conclusions, it seemed to me absolutely clear on the evidence that there was material that demanded fresh reconsideration. That is especially true given that it had already, in a sense, been accepted by the British Government, in the 1992 statement, that those who were killed were innocent of any illegal intent.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am not entirely sure whether my right hon. Friend is aware that seven of his Back-Bench Members of Parliament were in Northern Ireland on Monday and Tuesday; as secretary of the departmental Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I was happy to arrange that visit.
Our final round of talks on Tuesday afternoon, in the guildhall in Derry, was with the families and the victims of Bloody Sunday. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues who were there, on behalf of the families of Bloody Sunday and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), when I say that we thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his support

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does the Prime Minister agree that Bloody Sunday should also be seen as the tragic climax of a sequence of events that started some time before January 1972, and that many people and organisations helped to shape those events? Will the inquiry's terms of reference enable the tribunal to consider relevant background factors before 30 January?

The Prime Minister: The tribunal's inquiry is into the events of the actual day itself, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, of course, it is right for us to consider—no doubt it is something that the tribunal will have in mind when it comes to consider what happened on that day—the events that led up to it. There had been an extraordinary amount of violence, and many killings and murders had been carried out by terrorist organisations—in particular, the IRA. Of course all these things helped shape the context in which the events of that day took place. None the less, the tribunal will focus specifically on the events of that day and on the responses that were made, which is right and proper, but I have no doubt at all that it will have in mind the context in which those events happened.

Mr. Peter Temple—Morris: The Prime Minister is to be commended for this decision, and he deserves the full support of the House for it. Is he all too well aware that certain historical events in Ireland—often very sad events—have polarised and symbolised the opinion of many of the Irish towards the British, and that

we must get over those to secure the peace? Does he further agree that this is not about retribution or recrimination, but about implementing the even-handed treatment of all the people of Northern Ireland, without which we cannot secure the peace that they deserve?

The Prime Minister: That is right. Of course there are many polarised views. When we are presented with conflicting claims—some people calling for an inquiry; some people saying that it is not the right thing to do—the only way out of that situation is to examine the evidence and see whether it is justified on its merits. I believe, for the reasons that I have given, that it is.
It has not been a difficult decision. Indeed, I have been very closely personally involved with that decision; that is one of the reasons why I made today's statement myself. I have no doubt at all that, on the evidence, it is the right decision.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister has made it clear why Bloody Sunday is entirely different from the Bloody Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays that Ulster has endured; he said that it is different because the state's own authorities were concerned in it. If that is so, on the other side, the state's own authorities—the Dublin authorities and leading members of the Dublin Government—were involved in bringing about the Provisional IRA, and many of the terrorist acts that the Prime Minister is condemning were done by the Provisional IRA. Indeed, a member of the talks process today, who sits there presiding over his own party—Gerry Adams—was responsible for the terrible calamity of Bloody Friday in Belfast.
Therefore, as the Irish Government have joined in pushing for this inquiry, I would ask the Prime Minister to join now in pushing for an inquiry to look into the state's involvement, in the south, in producing the IRA, which has done such terrible deeds.

The Prime Minister: First, of course we received representations from the Irish Government, but the decision was our decision, and it was taken on the basis of the evidence. Secondly, in relation to the Provisional IRA and the events in which it was involved, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Bloody Friday, in which, some six months after the events of Bloody Sunday, 11 people were killed and 130 injured in Belfast. We know who was responsible for that and we can condemn them. We do not need an inquiry to condemn it; we know who was responsible. The Provisional IRA was responsible, and we condemn it.

Mr. David Winnick: My constituency is not far from Birmingham, where so many innocent people were murdered in November 1974. Is there not all the difference in the world between a Government in a democracy, who should always make sure that the rule of law is upheld, and terrorist organisations that, by their very existence, defy the rule of law? That is the answer to those on the Opposition Benches who speak of all the victims of violence. The important difference is between those who might have been terribly wrong, as quite likely they were on Bloody Sunday, and the victims of terrorist violence, which we have always condemned in the House.
I hope that the time will come when, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, there will be a memorial to all the victims of violence. We have a memorial in Birmingham to those whom I mentioned. Let all the victims be remembered.

The Prime Minister: I agree. All the victims should be remembered. I agree also with my hon. Friend's initial point, that we do not operate according to the standards of terrorist organisations. We operate according to the standards of the rule of law. That is why it is important always, in any circumstances where doubts are raised, that we lay those doubts to rest.
Let me make it clear once again: this is an inquiry into the facts, not a prejudgment of the facts. We shall inquire into what happened on that day. It is one of the best answers of democracy to the terrorists to say that when allegations are made against us, we are prepared to look at them. We have nothing to fear from a proper inquiry. We are prepared to uphold the rule of law. Terrorist organisations do not do that, which is precisely why they are terrorists and why we support the rule of law. If that distinction can be made, it is the distinction between the path of democracy and the path of violence.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I know from my 10 years' experience as a Law Officer in Northern Ireland and from the opportunity for discussion with people of good will on both sides that there is a genuine residue of anxiety not only about the events of that day, but about the inquiry that had to follow so swiftly. Lord Widgery is held in great regard, but there remain anxieties about that inquiry.
I believe that the Prime Minister is right to set up a fresh inquiry, but would he re-emphasise to the House that the armed forces are always placed in the most difficult position; that the object of the inquiry must be to get at the truth, not to go for recrimination and not to go for prosecution; and that any request by the tribunal to the Attorney-General for immunity could properly be considered sympathetically?

The Prime Minister: I agree with all of that. It is not for me to make the Attorney-General's decisions for him, but I know that he will give the matter proper consideration when requests for immunity are made. I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the difficult position in which the armed forces are placed. That is why I went out of my way in my statement to put on the record our support and admiration for the work that they do.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment about the genuine residue of anxiety is right—in part, for the reason that I gave earlier. There has been much debate about the Widgery conclusions, but, even in relation to the Widgery tribunal's findings of fact, it is clear that, in respect of many of those who were killed that day, there is no suggestion that they were involved in unlawful activity. That is why there is a residue of anxiety. People ask whether, if it is accepted that innocent people were killed, it is not right to establish the truth of what happened.
I agree with those who said earlier that we should not prejudge the outcome. We have set up the inquiry under a highly respected Law Lord, an extremely able man.

There will be two good people with him. That tribunal of three will genuinely inquire into the facts. It will be for them to establish the facts, which I am sure they will do impartially.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was a member of the delegation of Labour Members who visited Derry on Tuesday of this week when we met some of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday who have been campaigning for justice for more than a quarter of a century and who put forward a strong case for some form of international independent inquiry?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that some of the representatives of the Unionist community whom we met expressed no objections whatever to such an inquiry and, therefore, it is important that the inquiry is seen to be a search for truth and justice, which surely is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious beliefs?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it should be a search for truth, and I believe that many in the Unionist community will understand why it is necessary to have this inquiry. However, what those in the Unionist community will want us to do—which is why it is so important that we do so in the House—is to express our abhorrence at all the killings that there have been in Northern Ireland and our condemnation of the terrorists who engaged in those killings. That is a necessary part of reassuring them that this is not something that is done for one community or the other community; it is something done genuinely to get at the truth of what happened.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am somewhat disappointed that, having read the Widgery report, he did not set out very plainly to the House the background of the events? The Widgery report says that between August and February in that area nearly 3,000 shots were fired at the security forces and 456 nail bombs were thrown at them; that there were 225 explosions, mainly in commercial premises which belonged to Protestants, the end result of which was that they have largely disappeared from the west bank of the Foyle; that there was heavy and sustained rioting on that day; that the illegal march was part of the on-going effort made to overthrow the Government of Northern Ireland which the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), carried out three weeks later; and that the soldiers were there to uphold the rule of law, which, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, all democracies should uphold.
Will the Prime Minister give us a clear understanding that the tribunal will not only consider the evidence that has been produced by the Irish Government and people in Londonderry, but will consider and seek out all other evidence that was available at that time and not examined, because some of it might shed a somewhat different light on the events that the right hon. Gentleman has explained to the House today?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the tribunal will consider all relevant evidence, as it should do. In respect of the background of the events, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that earlier myself. Of course the


background to the events was as he described, but the plain fact of the matter is, as I also pointed out earlier, that it is not in dispute that, even on the basis of the Widgery report, at least some of those who were killed were killed wrongly. Therefore, it is important to try to establish the truth.
The background will no doubt be part of the consideration that is given by the tribunal to what happened on that day. None the less, it is important, in circumstances where it is a matter of common ground that innocent people were killed on that day, that the truth is properly established. In the end, that is best for both sides of the community.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend on his remarkable decision to set up the tribunal. There is now an opportunity, perhaps a final opportunity, to uncover the truth of that awful day and bring this dreadful affair to an end. It would be appropriate if many of the sittings were held in Belfast. I also emphasise, if it needs to be emphasised, that Labour Members hold our armed services in high regard. Some of us have even served with the British Army.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said at the end. The tribunal sittings will be a matter for the tribunal itself. In respect of the process, it is natural—I think that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, implied this—that there are of course risks in such an undertaking as holding this inquiry; there are bound to be. The process will be difficult and painful at times—that is clear as well. What is plain to me is that the problems, the wounds, have not disappeared over 26 years. They are still there. The best chance to heal them is to have a proper reconsideration and to try to get at the truth once and for all.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I represent the home base of one of the most distinguished regiments in the British Army, the Parachute Regiment. Just a few weeks ago, the 1st battalion of the Parachute Regiment returned to Aldershot from yet another tour in Northern Ireland, which it carried out with great distinction and great sensitivity.
Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a two-sided business; that there were indeed casualties on that tragic day in 1972, but that, since 1969, no fewer than 43 members of the Parachute Regiment have lost their lives in trying to uphold the peace in this country, in these islands, and that six civilians and one Roman Catholic padre were killed in Aldershot, outside the officers mess, in a despicable retaliatory action by men whom he condemns but who will not be called to account by the inquiry that he is to set up?
The Prime Minister made great play of his and his Government's support and admiration for our armed forces, and I believe that to be sincere. I believe that he does recognise the particular difficulties faced by young men in having to make split-second decisions, but does he not recognise that his decision today in some sense threatens to put counter-terrorist operations at risk if the front-line soldier feels that he does not have the support of his political master, whose orders he carries out?—[Interruption.] These are questions which deserve

answers. I represent men who are serving in Northern Ireland—[HoN. MEMBERS: "We all do."]—as do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and those men deserve an answer. The IRA will not be called to account in the inquiry that the Prime Minister will set up.
I conclude by reminding the Prime Minister:
These tragic events belong in the past."—[0fficial Report, 19 April 1972; Vol. 835, c. 521.]
Those are not my words but those of his predecessor, now Lord Callaghan.

The Prime Minister: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Whether these events should be revisited and whether it would have any effect on the way in which the armed forces operate on the ground weighed heavily with us. I agree entirely that they have to know that they have the support of their political masters, and they have it 100 per cent., but it would be a disservice to them to believe that they should have anything to fear from an inquiry that establishes the truth, where people accept that people were killed in circumstances in which they should not have been killed. Far from undermining support for our armed services, I believe that, by setting up the tribunal of inquiry under a highly respected Law Lord and establishing it in such a way that it can get at the truth, we underline the fact that, unlike the terrorists, we do not have anything to fear from inquiries into the truth.
The hon. Gentleman said that the IRA will not be called to account. Yes, they will be called to account. We do not need a tribunal to call them to account—we call them to account now. We call them to account every single time that any one of us speaks on these issues. We condemn absolutely and unequivocally what they have done and the terrorist murders that they have carried out.
Labour Members as well as Conservative Members have had constituents who were killed, murdered, in random acts of terrorism. That has happened on both sides of the community. We have seen in the past few weeks terrorists who have gone to a taxi rank and shot the taxi driver just on the basis that he happened to be a Catholic. All those people deserve our condemnation. It is precisely to show why we set higher standards than the terrorists that we say that it is right to have this inquiry.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The seeds of the inquiry were contained in letters sent from the previous Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), saying that the victims were innocent, and, prior to that, in letters to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and myself, saying that they were not guilty. In those circumstances, an inquiry was on the cards.
I was also with the group that met the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday in Deny on Tuesday. They said that there were two things that they did not want: first, they did not want an apology, because that would cut across and perhaps substitute for an investigation; and, secondly, that the inquiry should not be dealt with as a quid pro quo or a confidence-building measure but should take place entirely on the ground that it is the correct and just thing to do. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a proud record of raising issues in relation to Northern Ireland in


a particularly impartial and constructive way. I agree with both the points that he made. First, it would have been quite wrong if an apology cut across the investigation, and, secondly, the inquiry should be based on the evidence. It is based on the evidence, because, in a sense, that is why the matter has not gone away over 26 years. It might have gone away had the evidence been less clear, but it has not gone away precisely because the evidence is clear. There are matters that must be investigated and looked at.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The new dialogue group has been asking for at least a partial reopening of Widgery. May I give unqualified support to the Prime Minister's decision, to his statement and to his answers to questions? I am sorry both that people died in Derry that day and that thousands have died in the years since. There is nothing that the Provisional IRA can do to make people in Great Britain want to split the Union, but we should warn the disloyalists who are killing Catholics after the murder of Billy Wright that they test the unity of the Kingdom far more.

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we have said. I agree that those who carry out appalling killings in the name of loyalty to the United Kingdom commit a profound act of disloyalty to the United Kingdom, and they will not affect the Government's judgments in any way.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the assurances that he gave. They are a further demonstration that he and his Government, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, want to do everything possible to bring fairness, justice and the truth to the Province of Northern Ireland. Will he assure us that there will be no sidetracking of evidence, but no one will be intimidated against giving evidence, and that we shall obtain the truth, which will be published and presented to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give those assurances. Certainly, the evidence will be properly considered and the results given to the House

Mr. John Wilkinson: I sat through the debate to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, referred, on 1 February 1972, and heard how earnestly hon. Members on both sides of the House desired to establish the truth—the then Minister of State for Defence, Lord Balniel; Robin Chichester-Clark; the Home Secretary; Merlyn Rees, now Lord Rees; and Harold Wilson. Lord Widgery produced an exemplary report, which was remarkable for its clarity and objectivity. May I say to the Prime Minister that we need to look resolutely forward to secure reconciliation? The wounds run too deep. May I say candidly that reinvestigating these matters will just exacerbate the pain, sorrow and grief, and lead to further alienation of loyal people in Northern Ireland, who look to their Government to secure and protect their birthright and inheritance?

The Prime Minister: First, I do not cast any aspersions on the decisions that were made at that time. Many

hon. Members have given graphic descriptions of the circumstances in which those decisions were taken. In the end, it is a matter of judgment. We must make a judgment on whether it is possible to look forward without having sufficiently looked back and sorted out the problems that history has left us. My judgment is that we will not be able to move on to the next chapter until this chapter is properly closed.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman may disagree with that judgment. It is a fine judgment to make, but I came to it on the evidence. This issue will not go away. The residue of anxiety and grievance will not disappear while the evidence remains so clear that it is necessary to reconsider and re-evaluate what happened on that day. I do not doubt that that will be painful in many circumstances, but it is always better to search out and reach for the truth than to decide that it is too painful to get at and we should move on.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for establishing the inquiry. Will he assure the House that all Government and military departments will give their full co-operation, that the evidence that was ignored by the Widgery tribunal will be made available to the inquiry, and that witnesses, from whatever quarter, who require financial support for legal representation at the inquiry, will receive it?
All of us who want peace in the Six Counties recognise that it has to be based on honesty and truth. The inquiry will help to give an awful lot of people confidence that the Government are serious about the search for peace in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence will advise any of those serving at the time who give evidence to the tribunal, and will ensure that they are looked after properly. Other questions of representation will be for the tribunal to decide.
A lot of evidence will be examined afresh, although it is also fair to say that some of that evidence will be re-evaluated; it was available at the time.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Prime Minister has told the House that a judicial inquiry is needed because he wants to get at the truth, which he said was particularly important as an arm of the state was involved. Is he aware that another event—one that did not occur 26 years ago when someone else was Prime Minister—occurred in HMP Maze not much more than 26 days ago while he was Prime Minister? A man under the controlled custody and care of the state was murdered. A civil service-type inquiry is being held into that incident. Why can we not have a full-blown, judicial, public inquiry into those events, especially in view of the fact that a number of innocent people have been killed as a result?

The Prime Minister: There is already a perfectly well-established procedure for inquiring into such events. Two inquiries are already under way: one by the RUC and the other by the person specifically appointed to look into incidents in prisons. We have made it clear that we shall inform people of the results of those inquiries, and I am satisfied that that is the best way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I assure the Prime Minister that my question implies no criticism


either of the decision to reopen the inquiry or of the two eminent Commonwealth judges who are to sit with Lord Saville. Will he explain why he has decided to have two Commonwealth judges, as opposed to three United Kingdom judges?

The Prime Minister: Because it is important to make it absolutely clear that the inquiry will not only be impartial but will be seen to be impartial. Those appointments give the best chance of credibility. We have considered the matter carefully. We believe that it is right to have a senior British Law Lord, and that it will assist the inquiry to have two Commonwealth judges, who come from outside our jurisdiction but are familiar with its rules, sitting alongside him. That has been broadly welcomed across the spectrum.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Almost every hon. Member will agree with much of what the Prime Minister has said. I certainly do, and I do not doubt his good intentions. Does he accept that, since the Widgery report in 1972, the operational conditions of the Army and the security forces have changed dramatically, with the introduction of the yellow card and more stringent regulations? Because of that, two guardsmen, Fisher and Wright, are now languishing in gaol because they believed that they were doing their duty—mistakenly, as it happened.
Does the Prime Minister accept that, apart from the families of the deceased, with whom we all sympathise, the people who will gain the most satisfaction from his announcement may easily be—I regret to say—the IRA and Sinn Fein? As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, they were responsible for Warrenpoint and Enniskillen, but he recently met their representatives at No. 10 Downing street.
Finally, will the Prime Minister accept my assurance that, whatever he may believe, the announcement of an inquiry will make it more rather than less difficult for the security forces on the streets of Northern Ireland to carry out their task?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with that. If I had thought that, it would have been a very strong reason for not having an inquiry. I have to say that I think the single best weapon in the hands of those who are on the extreme side would that they could say, "They are not having an inquiry even when the evidence demanded it, because they are afraid of having one." I think that the greatest benefit of being seen to be unafraid to establish the truth in an inquiry will go to the democrats, who are able to say, "We are the people who recognise that we do things in a different way from terrorists, and when allegations are made about the way in which we have done things, we are prepared to have them investigated, and investigated properly."
As for the way in which the regulations have changed since 1972, yes, they have changed considerably. In respect of the case of Messrs Fisher and Wright, leave was granted in the High Court on Monday to seek a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to

comment further while legal proceedings are in train, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard the response that I gave an hon. Member yesterday.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Prime Minister welcome the support that his initiative has received from many parties in the House, including the Liberal Democrats? Will he confirm that the intention is not to carry out a witch hunt, but to hold an inquiry that is seen to be absolutely independent? Lastly, does he agree that the intention is not to build a monument to anguish, but to dismantle one, so that we can lay to rest the 26 years of uncertainty that many have experienced—and, perhaps, find it a little easier to look forward to a more peaceful future rather than back to a troubled past?

The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Prime Minister comment on one problem that will clearly arise from what he has said today?
I think that it is common ground between us that there is a strand within the Republican movement—it is probably a majority strand, although I accept that it is not a unanimous strand—that has not been seeking an inquiry for all these years, but seeking a verdict. The verdict that those people have been looking for is that a British army of occupation murdered peaceable people in the street.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that people in that frame of mind will not be satisfied by any form of inquiry that does not give them the verdict that they seek. While I do not for a moment minimise the difficulty of the decision that the right hon. Gentleman felt that he had to make, there is a sense in which what he has done today, far from laying the matter to rest, means that it will stay there in perpetuity.
There are those who would believe—and I think that they would believe it without criticising the Prime Minister for the decision that he has made—that the interests of the innocent people of Northern Ireland, and of the British Army that has protected them with such conspicuous courage, would have been better served if the House had said collectively, "A judicial inquiry was set up by a democratic Parliament, and we should have the confidence in our own institutions to stand by that original verdict."

The Prime Minister: We should stand by it entirely, unless there is evidence to suggest that it should be reconsidered. It would be contrary to the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman has said if, having evaluated that evidence, weighed it, looked at it and decided that it merited a reconsideration of the events of that day and of the original tribunal of inquiry, I refused to allow that.
As for the suggestion that people may want a type of verdict that convicts the "British army of occupation" and all the rest of it, and they are not going to get it, and that will be a problem for them, I am not setting up the inquiry for those people. I am setting up the inquiry because the relatives of those who died that day have the right to expect us, their Government—the British Government—to try to establish the truth of


the events of that day. I am interested in their interests, their concerns and their sense of grievance, not in the sense of grievance of people who have engaged in terrorist acts.

Mr. Tim Collins: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that, before his decision, he neither sought nor received any expression of opinion on the matter from any member of the Clinton Administration?

The Prime Minister: I have not personally, no, although I think that their views on it are pretty well known—as are the views of the Irish Government. They are perfectly entitled to their views. I took the decision based on the evidence.

Madam Speaker: I think that that is it. Thank you very much, Prime Minister.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Fourth Day).

TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Fifth Day).

WEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).

Remaining stages of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motion on the English revenue support grant report.

FRIDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.

MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [7th allotted day].

Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on the Child Support Agency on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The subject for the second half of the day to be announced.

TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Third Day).

Motion relating to the beef bones regulations.

WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Until 7 pm, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports.

Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.

THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Fourth Day).

FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Last week, I said that my hon. Friend the Minister for Women had asked for a debate, but that no date had yet been fixed. Her request was echoed by Conservative Members. I am pleased to be able to give early notice to the House that there will be a debate on women, on Friday 27 February.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. I say again to her—I say it each week, but it is appreciated—that it is useful for the House to have notice of two weeks' business. I thank her for her response to our request for a debate on women. I also appreciate the fact that a thorough airing of devolution issues relating to Wales and Scotland is possible because of the amount of time allocated to the Bills' Committee stages on the Floor of the House.
I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady said, but heard no mention of a debate on the national health service, which I asked about last week. As I said then—I think that she did just acknowledge it—there have


been a number of statements and policy developments in the national health service. We have not had a debate on it since July, and the Opposition called that debate. We now await announcements on the future of London hospitals and on a public health Green Paper. I therefore hope that we can have a debate on the national health service quite soon.
I believe that the right hon. Lady's instinct is for openness in the House. Indeed, that attitude illuminates a great deal of the work that is being done by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. Last week, she assured the House that there have been no changes to the ministerial code of conduct in respect of overseas trips for Ministers. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the same—although he said it so irritably that the roof of the Chamber fell in overnight.
Given that the code uses the word "spouse" throughout; that, before 1 May, it was spouses who accompanied Ministers; and that Government sources have been quoted widely in the press as saying that Ministers are now free to decide whether their partners count as spouses, it was a bit disingenuous of the right hon. Lady, and perhaps against her instincts, to say last week that the code had not been changed. Would it not have been more open to admit that, while the wording of the code may not have been changed, Government practice has, without the House having been informed? Will she therefore make a statement on the new and changed practice in relation to the code, if only for the benefit of taxpayers, who, after all, are footing the bill? Will she also arrange for the House to be told whether that changed practice is to be extended, for example, to Her Majesty's forces' entitlement to travel, or whether, in their case, travel at public expense is limited—rightly, in my view—to serving personnel, their husbands, wives and children?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on the public sector pay awards, which are being announced this afternoon? If, as has been widely trailed in the press, the pay awards are to be staged—they may not be, of course—will she arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to explain to the House how it was last year that the then shadow Chief Secretary described such staging as a "deception" and an "admission of failure" and to tell us how he proposes to describe the Government's staging of the award this year?
On the subject of public sector pay, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement on the cost to the taxpayer of the early dismissal of Anne Bullen before her contract had expired, in the continuing saga of the Foreign Secretary's diary arrangements?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Minister of Transport to explain to the House why he is introducing a tax on new cars with effect from 1 April? That tax was not included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget last July and, inevitably, its details have been announced by press release and not to the House. Although that demonstrates the Government's customary attitude towards the democratic process, it is nevertheless an abuse of the House.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady's first point was about the debate on women. I am pleased that we have been able to arrange that. As I said last week, the Minister for Women has requested such a debate and has suggested a date that we have now agreed. It is good that both sides of the House want such a debate.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes the progress that has been made on both devolution Bills and the airing that they are getting on the Floor of the House. We should also place on record our gratitude to those serving on the Business Committee, who make sure that the Bills are handled in the appropriate way.
The right hon. Lady asked for another debate on the national health service. As I explained last week, we have a packed parliamentary programme—however, we have much to say about the national health service. She mentioned the Green Paper and the fact that there may soon be an announcement on London hospitals. I shall consider the possibility of statements being made to the House on one or both of those issues.
The right hon. Lady then referred back to the point that she made last week and which the Leader of the Opposition—very unwisely, I think—made yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, in respect of the code of conduct. The issue is not worthy of the right hon. Lady, and I do not feel that anything needs to be said in addition to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. As for the roof of this building, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is claiming credit for that. However, you, Madam Speaker, have assured us that everything is safe.
In respect of the public sector pay awards, the right hon. Lady is correct that the announcement is being made, as is usual practice, by way of a parliamentary answer this afternoon. There has been no reversal of previous policy. Last year, we opposed local bargaining, which was bureaucratic and administratively extremely difficult, and caused much resentment in the national health service.
In respect of the dismissal of the diary secretary of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a debate on that next week, but of course the lady concerned was on a fixed contract, having been appointed from outside the civil service by a previous occupant of that office.
I can add nothing about tax changes. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will have to wait for the Budget.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: There are at least two hon. Members who came into the Chamber at the end of the Leader of the House's statement. They will not be called to put questions because they did not hear the entire business statement

Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly seeking to modernise the welfare state, to deal with the dependency culture and to encourage citizens to be more self-reliant. Could we have a statement next week on the issues arising from the case of my constituent who was self-reliant, took out an insurance policy and then found that the income that he derived from it was deducted from his jobseeker's allowance? He is left with only £3 a week to live on. There are 7 million people with similar insurance. Some £1.2 billion of insurance income is involved. Local authorities might have to reclaim more than £1 billion from claimants of housing benefit because of the new situation?

Mrs. Taylor: I recall that case from a few weeks ago. As I remember, there had not been a change in the rules.


The interaction of all those matters can be taken into account in the welfare reform debate. There will be a Green Paper setting out the principles underlying the direction of welfare reform. My right hon. Friend and others will have an opportunity to contribute their ideas then.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I welcome the Liberal Democrat Supply day, for which we are grateful, and the opportunity to debate our motion on the beef on the bone ban—an opportunity that is warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the motion will receive all-party support.
As the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has just said, there is widespread concern about the operation of the jobseeker's allowance. There is a specific problem coming down the track. Early-day motion 689 has all-party support.
[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1998, (S.1., 1998, No. 71), dated 15th January 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.]
I notice that the leader of the Conservative party and members of other parties have added their names to the motion. I hope that we shall have an early opportunity to debate that important issue.
The Leader of the House was in her place last night to hear the statement on the channel tunnel rail link and the points that were made after it. I am sure that she will acknowledge the importance of the issue. The Deputy Prime Minister said several times that he had come early to the House—we all welcomed that—with only a bald interim statement. Several hon. Members on both sides raised some very important issues, but we did not have the benefit of a detailed assessment of the situation.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that, during the 30-day consultation period with London and Continental Railways, we shall have an opportunity to understand the issues and the criteria that the Deputy Prime Minister will use to assess the options? The matter has great implications for other private and public institutions. We do not want a witch hunt back to 1990, to see what Lord Parkinson did or did not do, but it is important, given the huge sums involved, that the House should have an opportunity to understand the options for progress.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that we were able to provide the Opposition day that the Liberal Democrats wanted. I look forward to hearing the second topic for debate, which I shall announce next week.
The beef on the bone regulations are up for discussion. I know about the rivalry to get a name on such a prayer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to find time for a debate on the statutory instrument on the jobseeker's allowance. As he knows, any such requests are discussed through the usual channels in the normal way.
The House appreciated my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister coming here as soon as possible after the news about the channel tunnel rail link was confirmed at 8 pm last night. Hon. Members on both sides were pleased that the fullest information available was given directly to

the House. My right hon. Friend said that he would try to keep the House informed as much as possible, although there could be delicate and difficult negotiations in the next 30 days. It may not always be appropriate for all the information to be in the public domain. Given my right hon. Friend's start in informing the House last night, we can be confident about his intentions to keep the House informed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having sat through every Welsh and Scottish devolution debate, may I be forgiven for asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a question of which I gave her office notice? Could not three hours be found for a debate that goes further than a private notice question—I thank Madam Speaker for Monday's question—on the desperate situation that might result in this country going to war in the Gulf? Could certain issues be made clear arising from Madeleine Albright's visit? In particular, what are the precise objectives of bombing biochemical and biological installations—assuming that they exist—in the light of my question, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence promised to reply shortly, on the specific issue of bombs landing on anthrax or botulinus installations? What would be the effects of released spores? Those problems ought to be discussed before we get into a mire that could cause endless difficulty in the middle east, where we seem to have no Arab support.

Mrs. Taylor: When my hon. Friend raised the issue last week, I said that we would keep the House informed whenever possible of any developments. We hope that diplomatic efforts will succeed. The Ministry of Defence has carried out theoretical modelling based on the worst case scenario of bombing installations containing anthrax, assessing the risk to military operations that might result from the destruction of enemy biological production and storage facilities. I repeat that we desperately hope for diplomatic progress. I know that my hon. Friend has different views on the importance of the issue, but I hope that he accepts that the Government will try to keep the House informed on that difficult subject.

Mr. Eric Forth: Could we have a debate on the Government's commitment to the principles of the social chapter? Could it be focused on their long-standing wish to protect people with short-term contracts, particularly women? Will the Leader of the House promise that the debate will be replied to by the Foreign Secretary?

Mrs. Taylor: I see no need for such a debate.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I welcome the plan for a debate on women. Perhaps it will concentrate on the real needs of women, not on cheap jibes about a tiny number of women who have been in the papers lately. I have a serious point. I am disappointed that the debate is to take place on a Friday. That does not seem to be a good choice. Is there a good reason why the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) chose a Friday and why the Government agreed? A normal business day would have been better for a discussion on the wide range of issues affecting women in Britain.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the debate in principle. I am not surprised, given the


interest that she has shown in women's issues for many years. I am sure that she will talk about the real needs of women if she is able to catch your eye in that debate, Madam Speaker. I am sure that, like me, she looks forward to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) being in his seat and perhaps participating.
The Friday in question is designated for Government business. As a Scottish Member, my hon. Friend will understand that there are constraints on time because of the need to debate the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Particularly in the light of the Prime Minister's sanctimonious words in answers to questions yesterday and on other occasions about the importance of issues relating to women in the workplace, will the Leader of the House consider not only a debate to address the specific issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but a statement from herself or one of her right hon. Friends, releasing Anne Bullen from the ban on her speaking, so that she is able to respond to the campaign of vilification that is being waged against her by the Foreign Secretary, his henchmen and Labour spin doctors?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that that comment is even worthy of an answer. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of next week's Adjournment debate.

Dr. Lynne Jones: May I also ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations? In doing so, I draw her attention to early-day motion 709.
[That this House notes that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations, which increase waiting days from three to seven, was proposed and announced by the previous Tory Government in November 1996; observes that the Social Security Advisory Committee has said the proposal 'would add unacceptably to the hardship experienced by unemployed people and their families' and that 'people will be less likely to take the risk of starting casual work or work of short duration' and has advised the Government not to proceed with it; regrets that the Labour Government is nevertheless proceeding with these Tory regulations in order to save £65 million but also notes that the Tory front bench has changed its position and is now opposing its own proposal; and therefore calls on the Government to withdraw these Tory regulations which even the Tories have now deserted.]
Many Labour Members are perplexed by why the Government are introducing the measure, which the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended against and which seems to be in direct conflict with the initiatives that the Government are rightly taking to encourage unemployed people to find work.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that I made it clear earlier that, when it comes to debating any such issues, there is a great deal of pressure on the House's time. We have discussions and consultations and, of course, I take them all into account. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that she wants.

Mr. Graham Brady: Two weeks ago at business questions, I asked the Leader of the

House to look into a situation in which the Foreign Secretary had knowingly or otherwise given an inaccurate response to a question that I had asked him in the Chamber. I took the precaution of tabling a written question. The answer confirmed, in the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that I did not receive an accurate response. About three hours ago, I received a letter from the Leader of the House, which simply says that she is satisfied that the Minister of State's answer accurately set out the position. That was not my point. My concern was that the Foreign Secretary had inaccurately answered my question, not whether his Minister of State has answered it.
I understand that, in 1956, Harold Macmillan described the life of a Foreign Secretary as for ever poised between a cliche and an indiscretion. It is clear that the Foreign Secretary has lost that poise. From his behaviour, it seems that he has also lost all respect for the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House look again at the facts and ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to put the record straight?

Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Gentleman in my letter.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the tragedy that struck in my constituency on 15 December, when three elderly constituents died in a fire in a private care home. Can we have a debate on fire precautions in private care homes? Such accommodation is not subject to fire inspections because of its size. I consider the event in my constituency a marker for what could happen in many other constituencies. The rules should be changed, and a debate would help us to achieve the changes for which people are asking.

Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern at the tragedy in his constituency. I cannot promise him a debate on fire precautions in the way that he suggests, but perhaps he would consider applying to you, Madam Speaker, for an Adjournment debate. For my part, I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the widespread interest in foreign affairs, will the Leader of the House grant us an early debate on the subject to allow the Foreign Secretary an opportunity to explain his relations with the Minister responsible for foreign affairs in Cuba? The matter relates to early-day motion 671.
[That this House warmly welcomes the visit of His Holiness the Pope to Cuba; and believes that his spiritual leadership and courageous personal example will be an inspiration to the people of Cuba now as they were to people behind the Iron Curtain during the dark days of the Cold War who similarly suffered too long under state-sponsored atheism and authoritarian Marxist government.]
The early-day motion was tabled following the visit of His Holiness the Pope to the island and refers to the issues and hopes that the visit raised.

Mrs. Taylor: We cannot have a specific debate on that in the near future, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to Ministers' attention.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Given that the Government's policy to reduce value added tax on fuel is bringing many benefits to everyone across the country—to businesses, charities and pensioners—including 17,000 pensioners in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on such benefits, and particularly the gains of reducing VAT on home insulation?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important topic, and one that is of benefit to many pensioners in his constituency and in mine, nearby. The fact that we kept our election pledge on VAT on fuel and reversed the Conservative party's trend of increasing it has been of great assistance to many, as are the payments to pensioners that are being made at present.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Yesterday, during the Scotland Bill's first day in Committee, many amendments were not discussed. I know that that often happens, but the Scotland Bill is a constitutional Bill of great importance. Is it possible, either through the Business Committee that is considering the matter, or in other ways, for people with more knowledge and skill than I have in such matters to devise a method whereby all amendments are properly considered—either through better timetabling or use of time in the House, or even by having a separate Committee to mop up the amendments that are not discussed? It is very unsatisfactory that some amendments to a major constitutional Bill are never considered.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the Business Committee has done quite a good job. In fact, most hon. Members have been very happy with the progress that has been made. It is always difficult to satisfy every hon. Member's desire to participate on every occasion, but we have been working quite well so far.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a debate on short-term contracts and so on, we should first get it clear in our mind that the Leader of the Opposition is at the head of the list, and that the debate is called "Waiting for Portillo"? Next, the debate should be broad enough to ensure that we deal with Tory explanations for sacking Clive Ponting—that civil servant of yesteryear—and Sarah Tisdall. Let the Tories explain that. They should also explain why they sacked thousands of customs officers—civil servants—which resulted in havoc at all Britain's ports. If we are to have such a debate, let it be broad enough to relate to all those sackings, including, some time ago, that of the secretary agent in the Richmond offices of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Taylor: Fortunately, I have no responsibility for the agent at the Leader of the Opposition's offices. From what my hon. Friend says, he would need more than one day for the debate that he envisages. I am glad that he has raised some of those important points, including the one about customs officers and the fact that we have reversed the cuts on which the Conservative party embarked. It is gratifying to notice some very good drug hauls recently, which are partly as a result of having in place extremely diligent customs officers. I do not think that I can find time to debate all the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the right hon. Lady arrange an early debate on the flow of information to Members of Parliament? She kindly answered a question in the House a few days ago about the time that it takes to obtain answers from Ministers to hon. Members' letters. She may have seen on the Order Paper that, yesterday, I tabled questions to 19 different Departments asking about their record on replying. She will also see two questions about the contract of employment of Mrs. Bullen.
As the Opposition—and, I suspect, Labour Members too—are having great difficulty in getting answers in a timely manner, will the right hon. Lady ensure that that happens? If we do not have a debate, will she at least use her best offices to ensure that she looks after the rights of the House ahead of the embarrassment of the Government?

Mrs. Taylor: The Government have a responsibility to answer questions in as short a time scale as possible, but hon. Members also have a responsibility to bear in mind the cost of answering parliamentary questions, and they should table responsible questions.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I refer the right hon. Lady to the final part of her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? Nobody could possibly expect her to know about everything that emanates from the Government, but may I draw her attention to the fact that on 15 January the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a press release saying that there would be a new tax on motoring—in effect, a car ownership tax—from 1 April, set at "about £25"?
That tax was not mentioned in the Chancellor's Budget statement in July, and the next Budget statement is not expected for some weeks. Will the right hon. Lady please give clarification, and an opportunity to debate the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that the press release gave some idea of the nature of the tax, not that it was a precise proposal. Indeed, he used the word "about" in his description of it. I shall look into the matter, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that Transport questions are scheduled for next Tuesday, and it may be possible to raise it then. I shall make further inquiries about the precise wording of the press release that he asked me about.

Points of Order

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) raised a point of order of which he had given me notice, about the fact that I had not accepted a request from him to discuss the Hertfordshire structure plan. I could not be in the House yesterday, as I was on a bilateral visit to the Netherlands on United Kingdom presidency business.
I have written to the hon. Gentleman today to explain the position. It is a long-standing practice that Ministers with responsibility in planning cases do not meet individuals, whether they are Members of the House or not, to discuss local planning issues, whether those concern individual applications or wider issues such as development plans, that may come before them for decision.
That is because any such meeting could be held to prejudice the Secretary of State's decision making and render decisions liable to challenge in the courts. That is why I declined the hon. Gentleman' s request for a meeting to discuss the specific issues related to the Hertfordshire structure plan, as I would have declined, and consistently do decline, similar requests from Members of the House from all parties.
A request for a meeting about general policy issues, such as that which I received recently from a group of Labour Members on the green belt in general, is an entirely different matter. In the light of that, I have offered the hon. Gentleman a meeting to discuss general policy on the green belt.

Mr. Richard Page: rose—

Madam Speaker: I am not allowing a debate, as the Minister spoke on a point of order, but the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) originally raised the matter and I recognise that fact.

Mr. Page: I accept the Minister's generous offer to debate the matter and the individual aspects of concern on planning, which I have raised several times before in my letters to him.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, no further points of order. That was a specific point of order related to the incident—

Mr. Wilkinson: This is specifically related to the planning matter that my hon. Friend raised.

Madam Speaker: That has been dealt with. If it is a different point of order—

Mr. Wilkinson: It is not a different point; it is the same.

Madam Speaker: In that case, the Minister has made the point of order—

Mr. Wilkinson: It is the same point, Madam Speaker.
I sought, on behalf of the London Green Belt Council, of which I am the elected president, to take a deputation to the Minister's parliamentary and Government colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—

Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was another point of order and he insisted that it was not, but was related to the first point. Does the hon. Gentleman's point relate to Hertfordshire?

Mr. Wilkinson: It does indeed, Madam Speaker. It relates specifically to Hertfordshire county council's structure plan, about which the London Green Belt Council has serious reservations, and wanted to make the general points of policy that are important to our membership to the relevant Minister. On both occasions when I made a request in writing well in advance, we were refused, not on the specific grounds that the Minister has now given—that a meeting would prejudice the quasi-judicial position of the Minister—but with an obfuscatory answer that provided no clarification whatever.

Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the Minister has now been able to clarify his position on such matters.

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order No. 22(4) provides that
Where a Member has indicated that a question is for written answer on a named day the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given".
On Monday this week, I tabled seven questions for answer today by the Foreign Secretary. They are all simple factual questions, easily answered, yet I have received no answer. May I ask, Madam Speaker, what steps you can take to enforce the Standing Orders of the House?

Madam Speaker: Not having been given any indication that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to raise that point of order, I want an opportunity to look at the Standing Order. I am sure that he is correct about it, because he seems to have it in front of him, and I would like to do the same. I will let him know as soon as I have been able to look at it and at the questions that he put, and make inquiries.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Madam Speaker. When you examine that business, will you take into account the fact that, during the past 18 years of Tory government, there were literally hundreds of occasions when Tory Ministers refused to answer questions on time? Let us have a level playing field and not give the impression that, somehow, something new has occurred, when the same thing happened over and over again. It was done even by that recidivist, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was Home Secretary.

Madam Speaker: I am always grateful for advice and guidance.

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28 January].

MR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 18

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 18, page 8, line 42, after "deputies', insert
or such other number of deputies as the Parliament may determine.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 196, in page 8, line 42, after 'deputies', insert
, provided that the election of the Presiding Officer is carried by the votes of not less than two thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament and, within each region by the votes of not less than two thirds of the number of constituency members and not less than two thirds of the number of regional members of the Parliament.'.

No. 13, in page 8, line 42, at end insert—
'(1A) The Parliament may change the title "Presiding Officer" to such other title as it considers appropriate.'.

Government amendment No. 218.

No. 14, in clause 19, page 9, line 15, after "Parliament', insert
', who may be known as the Clerk of the Parliament or by such other title as the Parliament considers appropriate.'.

No. 145, in clause 19, page 9, line 16, leave out "Corporate Body' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 197, in clause 20, clause 20, page 9, line 23, leave out 'Corporate Body' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 146, in clause 20, page 9, line 24, leave out first corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 147, in clause 20, page 9, line 24, leave out second corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 148, in clause 20, page 9, line 25, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 149, in clause 20, page 9, line 27, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 150, in clause 20, page 9, line 31, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 151, in clause 20, page 9, line 35, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 152, in clause 20, page 9, line 36, leave out "corporation's' and insert 'Estate's.

No. 153, in clause 20, page 9, line 38, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 154, in clause 20, page 9, line 40, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 155, in clause 20, page 9, line 42, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 156, in clause 20, page 10, line 1, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 157, in clause 20, page 10, line 3, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 158, in clause 20, page 10, line 6, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.

No. 45, in clause 41, clause 41, page 18, line 5, leave out 'First Minister' and insert 'Scottish Premier'.

No. 85, in clause 41, page 18, line 5, leave out 'First' and insert 'Chief".

No. 15, in clause 41, page 18, line 10, at end add—
(3) The Parliament may change the terms "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister" to such other terms as it considers appropriate.'.

Mr. Gorrie: As well as amendment No. 36, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. They all have the same purpose, which is to enable the Scottish Parliament to have the flexibility, once established, to change certain names. It is reasonable to set out the names before the Parliament starts, so that it at least has a starting point.
However, if the Parliament is to be a worthwhile organisation, it must be able to decide whether it needs more than two Deputy Presiding Officers, whether it likes the title "Presiding Officer" or wishes to use some other title, whether it wishes to change the title "Clerk of the Parliament" and feels that it should have some other title. It should also be able to decide whether it likes the titles "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister".
It is an essential minor point, to show the validity of the Parliament, that it should have the facility to change those titles. Some of us were disappointed yesterday by the statement in which the Secretary of State made it clear that the Parliament would not be as waterproof in the devolved areas as the general public in Scotland had been led to believe.
Perhaps it is a token, but it is an important token, that the Parliament should at least have the ability to decide the titles of the various people and the numbers of people holding the various posts. There is considerable unhappiness in Scotland about the dictatorial way in which the site of the Parliament has been decided, and now we find that the Parliament will not have the powers that many people were led during the referendum campaign to believe that it would have. At the very least, it should have the capacity to make some of those minor changes, and I hope that the United Kingdom Parliament will see that it is essential to allow the Scottish Parliament to have that power.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to register the hope that we will not spend too much time on these amendments, because there are very important matters to deal with on clauses 28 and 29, and we may get into great difficulty on the guillotine. I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie): surely to heavens we can leave these matters to the Scottish Parliament when it is set up; it is surely its business to decide on titles and on the way in which it wants to work.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we do not want to spend much time on these amendments, but certain of them must be spoken to.
We tabled amendment No. 196 essentially because the new Parliament will have a new political ethos, and the Presiding Officer will have considerable powers; one need only look at clause 31 to see the extent of those powers.
It would be proper for the Presiding Officer to have the broadest possible endorsement, not only of the Parliament as a whole but by region and by category of Member, especially because, with the list system, if we are not careful, party considerations could come into play.
I think that we will all agree that the new Parliament will not have the traditions of the House, which effectively trains its Members to accept that, if they take the Chair, as you have, Mr. Lord, they are above and beyond the normal party politics. That tradition may eventually grow in the new Parliament, but it is important that the Presiding Officer should have the widest possible respect and support from the beginning. The proposal is not unprecedented. The framework document for Northern Ireland contained the same provision.
I tabled other amendments that may have puzzled hon. Members. They would replace the words "Corporate Body" or "corporation" with the word "Estate". "Corporate Body" has a Victorian ring to it, and I wanted something that was more Scottish and appropriate to the new body. The word that I came up with may come from the 18th century, but it is Scottish and constitutional. It should be spelt "Estaite", but I was informed by the Table Office that that was not a spelling that was recognised by the House, so to get the amendments tabled, I had to spell it in the more modem and English form. I wanted to use a little imagination to find something more exciting than the idea of a corporate body.

Mr. James Wallace: I am fascinated to hear about that ruling. Did those who advised the right hon. Gentleman cite a ruling from Madam Speaker or a previous Speaker on what determines spelling that may be used in the House? Surely, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Scots spelling is as legitimate as English.

Mr. Ancram: We will deal with the Scottish language on amendment No. 118. When the Table Office staff tell me that I cannot table an amendment in a certain form, and I am up against the deadline, I normally take their advice, as I did on this occasion.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Amendment No. 45 proposes that the head of the Scottish Administration should be called the Scottish Premier, not the First Minister. "Premier" is simpler—for a start, it has half the syllables—and would cause less confusion, because "First Minister" and "Prime Minister" are almost identical. There could be confusion if, for example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visited the First Minister in Scotland. Scots are familiar with the word "premier", as we talk about the premier division and premier quality.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: With amendment No. 45, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of leading to more confusion. Those of us who are interested in sport and listen to the results on a Saturday afternoon expect,

whenever we hear the words "Scottish premier", to hear "division" immediately after. It would not be wise to confuse the electorate, who are far more interested in sport than in politics, by changing "First Minister", which is at least new and different, to something that everyone associates with football.

Mr. Canavan: The man tipped to become the first First Minister—not a phrase that trips off the tongue as easily as "the first Premier"—is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that we would all agree that he is in the premier division and of premier quality, although there is nothing divisive about him.
Whoever gets the job, be it my right hon. Friend or somebody else—it might be a right hon. Lady—should have a title that is in keeping with the dignity and status of the office. "Premier" is French for first, so it might be indicative of the old alliance between Scotland and France if we referred to the leader as "Le Premier" or "La Première".
The term is also used in many Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada, so it is not unfamiliar to Parliament, which set up dominion status for former parts of the empire, some of which eventually became independent states. The term "Scottish Premier" sounds more distinctive and prestigious, but, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he will at least consider allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide such matters, as opposed to our going on about them endlessly in Committee.

Mr. Alex Salmond: "Scottish Premier" is also the name of a well-known brand of beef products in the north-east of Scotland, so I suppose that, if the First Minister was not in his place in the Scottish Parliament, people would shout, "Where's the beef?"
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) informed us with a straight face that the Scottish Parliament might be vulnerable to party intrigue and division, whereas this Parliament has such marvellous long-standing traditions that such matters never enter hon. Members' heads.
It is best not to take many of the Tory contributions to this debate too seriously—that is the right attitude to strike on the evidence of yesterday's debate—but underlying what the right hon. Gentleman said is an extraordinarily arrogant assumption that somehow the Scots Parliament must be protected from itself and from the Scottish people, and that rural Scotland must be protected from urban Scotland. The fact that the Conservative party cannot get elected in rural or urban Scotland seems totally to have escaped him.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman spends a lot of his time enjoying himself by attacking the Tory party. I wish to make a serious suggestion. In a Scottish Parliament, the broadest possible support for the first Presiding Officer might be a good thing. I am surprised to hear him suggest that it is not.

Mr. Salmond: I was talking about what underlay the amendment. The House heard the right hon. Gentleman suggest that somehow the traditions of this House meant that things would be conducted in a perfectly orderly manner, but that the Scottish Parliament was an institution


without those traditions. Therefore, we would have to write into its Standing Orders at this stage some protection—the same language and logic we heard yesterday, when the Tories said that they would protect rural Scotland. Rural Scotland has fundamentally rejected the Conservative party over the past 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman said that I enjoy myself attacking the Tory party—with some success, I might add. Banff and Buchan has not a single Conservative councillor, and we have to import Tories.

Mr. Ancram: Just wait.

Mr. Salmond: I have been waiting for some time, and I suspect that we will wait some time more for a Conservative comeback. The great difficulty for the Conservatives in Scotland is the Conservatives who sit on the Opposition Front Bench in this House. Every time they make a speech—with the insulting and condescending attitudes that they represent—they put back their colleagues in Scotland. They know it, and their colleagues in Scotland know it.
It is important for this Committee to take note of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said. We all may have ideas about what title is best, be it First Minister, Premier or Prime Minister. It may be that we should think about another title for the Members of the Parliament—whether they should be MSPs or Commissioners of the Scottish Parliament. I note what the right hon. Member for Devizes said about not getting the word "estaite" into his amendments. It is a strange institution which will accept Norman French but not the Scots language in its amendments.
The fundamental point is that we are enabling the Scottish Parliament to get on with its business. The note struck by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West—reflected in a large number of speeches—is that we should leave these matters to the Scottish Parliament when it is up and running. If it wants to change the titles, change them it shall; basically, nothing we say or do in this place will make any difference.
An excellent meeting of the consultative group to discuss the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament was marred only by the sole Conservative contribution, which seemed to be a last-ditch defence of the right to have 20 or 30 directorships while simultaneously serving as a Member of the Scottish Parliament—another attitude that will get short shrift from the people of Scotland.
Basically, it was a good meeting—there was a good feeling at the first meeting of the consultative group. I hope that the Minister feels able to give some indication to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that that attitude—of letting the Scottish Parliament decide these things—will be reflected in the Government's attitude today.

Mr. John McAllion: First, I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister that he reject amendment No. 196, tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is an absurd proposition that a Speaker can only be elected on the basis not just of two thirds of the Members of the Parliament, but of two thirds of all the constituency Members and two

thirds of the regional list Members in each of the eight regions across Scotland. If the Tory party had applied that formula to its own elections, it might have done a lot of good; the Conservative party would not have its present leader.
It would be almost impossible to elect anyone on that basis. I can think of no figure—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland—who could command such widespread support throughout Scotland. In reality, amendment No. 196 is a wrecking amendment, which gives the lie to the idea that the official Opposition are being in any sense constructive in their approach to the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is making a great fuss about this. Why did the Labour party accept such a system for the proposed Assembly in Northern Ireland in the framework document?

Mr. McAllion: I was quite unaware that my party had accepted it. If I had known, I would have said that it was an absurd proposition. It seems nonsense to me, particularly in a Parliament which will have not four parties, but six, seven or eight. That would give tremendous influence to smaller parties, which could block any agreement because of their strength in a particular part of Scotland. The Tories expect to be a very small party, embedded in only one little part of Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Certainly not in my part of Scotland, but there must be parts of Scotland where they vote Tory. There are 500,000 of them somewhere; I do not know where they are all distributed.
I want to recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). My hon. Friend will recall that, when I was appointed to the Scottish Select Committee, the entire Committee was invited to the brand new civil service office in Leith to be shown the ropes by all the Scottish Office civil servants. During that very useful day, one of the civil servants responsible for drafting the Bill made the point that Westminster would, of course, have to draft Standing Orders, which would be there for the Parliament to use on its first day.
However, those Standing Orders would be drafted in such a way as to allow the Parliament itself to shape the kind of Parliament which the Scottish Members wanted. They would not be proscriptive Standing Orders, and the Scottish Parliament would be left free to decide for itself what it should call the presiding Minister, how many deputies there should be, how the Speaker should be elected, and so on.
My hon. Friend the Minister may point out that I have put my name to an amendment which seeks to tell the Parliament to call him or her not the First Minister but the Scottish Premier. Obviously, the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and myself is not consistent with the White Paper—which we supported in general—but the White Paper is not consistent with the convention document, "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right," which states that the convention wanted the Speaker of the Parliament to be called the Speaker and the Head of Government to be called the Chief Minister. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why he has departed from the agreement in the convention document. He changed the proposal in the White Paper, and is continuing to do so in the Bill.
I understand that there could be confusion if the Heads of Government in Scotland and in the rest of the UK were both called Prime Minister, as people might not know to whom they were referring. I am happy for this House to retain the use of the term "Prime Minister". In the early 18th century, it was a very unofficial term—in fact, it was regarded as odious, and Sir Robert Walpole and Lord North repudiated it. If the British Parliament wishes to carry on with an odious title for its Head of Government, it is free to do so. I would like to see a better term for the Scottish Parliament, and that is why I believe that Scottish Premier is the best way forward.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the Secretary of State launched the White Paper in the House, I asked whether the term "First Minister" was written in tablets of stone. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a form of words used in the White Paper, giving the impression that, thereafter, we could choose the term to use.

Mr. McAllion: I am greatly encouraged by the hon. Lady's intervention, and I shall now give the reason why I think the title should be Scottish Premier. Perhaps those who get to the Scottish Parliament should take note of what I say here, in case I do not get there myself.
"Scottish Premier" is a shortened version of Premier Minister, which can be defined as Prime Minister or Head of Government. That would end the confusion, and would mean that the Scottish Premier would not be seen in way as secondary to the British Prime Minister. If there were a suggestion that the Prime Minister was "over" the Scottish Premier, it would be unfortunate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West mentioned Canada and Australia. I am concerned because, in Canada and Australia, the federal Head of Government is called the Prime Minister and the Heads of the state Governments are called Premiers. There is a clear indication that the Prime Minister is above the Premiers. I would not want that to be the case in Scotland. I want the Scottish Premier to be so called on the basis of the auld alliance, with the French interpretation of that term—that the Scottish Premier is in every sense equal to the British Prime Minister for the areas for which he is responsible.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that we can resolve all the issues mentioned in the debate. I tabled amendment No. 85, which suggests that instead of First Minister, we should call the new chap the Chief Minister. That is a sensible compromise, and would be a major step forward.
I seriously suggest that the Government should not accept amendment No. 36, which would give the devolved Parliament the right to make such decisions itself. Hon. Members should be aware that it is a real possibility, as I have always suggested, that one of the strange, unusual parties—or perhaps even the Scottish National party—might get control and use names that would give the wrong impression.
I hope that hon. Members who are celebrating in advance the great delights of the Scottish Parliament appreciate that terrible problems will almost inevitably arise. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) rightly said that people were misled in the referendum

about the powers of the assembly. The wholly wrong impression was given that a new form of self-government was coming in that would give unique power to the Scottish people to make their own decisions. Those who study the Bill know that it is a load of codswallop, that the powers are astonishingly limited, and that there will be less money because the cost of the assembly will have to be deducted. I hope that hon. Members understand some of the immediate problems that will arise.
5.30 pm
On the First or Chief Minister, what will happen when a Secretary of State from a different party uses powers in clause 33 to direct the Scottish Parliament that a Bill must be cancelled or that a Bill that it does not want must be introduced? Without a clear definition of the relationship between the First Minister and the Secretary of State, how would Members of the Scottish Parliament feel if the Secretary of State told the First or Chief Minister, "I am sorry that law you passed has to be cancelled, scrubbed, finished," or, "Whether you like it or not, I am going to demand that you pass this law."?
Secondly, there is the position of the Secretary of State. I see that one hon. Member is smiling, but it is a serious situation: hon. Members know that problems could arise if the First or Chief Minister and the Secretary of State came from different parties. We must consider the status of the First Minister compared with that of the Secretary of State. The Bill envisages a direct relationship between the devolved Administration and the sovereign. That presumably means that the Secretary of State is no longer the sovereign' s representative in Scotland.
The new Chief Minister will apparently have substantial powers. He will be the head of the Scottish Executive and Keeper of the Scottish Seal. He will have a direct relationship with the sovereign in the appointment of Ministers, junior Ministers, law officers, sheriffs and judges of the Court of Session, other than the Lord President, and the Lord Justice Clerk, in whose appointment he has a role directly with the Prime Minister.
Hon. Members think that everything will be great, but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, the people of Scotland have been misled about the powers of the new assembly. The impression was given that its powers would be much greater. There will be problems with money because the costs of the new Parliament will come off the money that is already there. There will be trouble and difficulties. That is why it is important to clarify the role of the person in charge.
"First Minister" is not appropriate for a democratic assembly. What is wrong with "Chief Minister"? That achieves separation from the titles of "Prime Minister" and "Secretary of State". "Chief Minister" is a step forward. I hope that the Secretary of State will think carefully about my suggestion, which I make helpfully. I hope that he will play a part in not going along with what seems to be the general feeling in this place that everything will be great—that life will be a bed of roses and better in every respect for the people of Scotland.
As a former Scottish Member who now has no right to represent the people of Scotland directly but cares greatly about Scotland and its people, I hope that hon. Members know that what they think will be exciting and innovative could well turn out to be an horrendous democratic mess.


It could result in deterioration of services for Scotland and widespread conflict between the government in Edinburgh and the Administration in Westminster, especially if different parties are in charge. I hope that hon. Members will approach the Bill asking how they can try to resolve problems, not make them worse.
While I have been delighted at some of the contributions from both Government and Opposition Members, I have been horrified by Liberal Democrats' contributions, such as their comments yesterday about the need for plenty of farmers in the Scottish assembly to ensure that agriculture is well represented. I hope that the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that the Scottish Parliament will not control agriculture, and that to a large degree, this Parliament does not, either. I hope that the Government will accept my excellent, helpful and constructive suggestion in amendment No. 85, which is also supported by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Mr. Michael Connarty: I intend to support amendment No. 85 as a solution to the problem of the name, despite the intemperate contribution of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who tabled it. He sought to portray the parliamentary process as determined by conflict, which it need not be.
Using the title "chief" rather than another does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it should be a man. Many of the old Scottish clans, which used the word, "chief", were matriarchal rather than using the male line. "Chief Minister" resolves the problem. "First Minister" suggests that it is something less than the Prime Minister, when, in the Parliament of Scotland, that Minister will be the most important and should be called "Chief Minister". In a Scottish context, we should think about that seriously.
I reject the title "premier" because, like it or not, it is a French word. It has come into common usage. Sadly, as was pointed out earlier, the correct spelling of the word "estaite" has fallen out of use in English parliamentary language. "Premier" gives rise to problems, some of which are funny. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the premier division, although it is actually the premier league. If there were a Division in the House, would we be in the Premier Division or the Opposition Division, with the premier or against the premier? The word would be the butt of many jokes. It would not be a good solution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, in Australia "premier" is a state title. I went to Australia recently with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There, they clearly distinguish between the premier of a state and the Prime Minister of the country.
On the word "estaite", the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) could have been a little bit more Scottish in his interpretation, and used the word "commonwealth". "Common weal" is the modern word "commonwealth". The concept of corporation is not attractive. We should have had another word. Commonwealth would have been appropriate. It would be wholly appropriate if the Scottish Parliament wished to refer to the common weal of the body.
There are many things to be debated, but I do not think that this is the Chamber that should decide them. That is the fundamental point. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is right to say that it should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide how it sees itself, how it reflects the will of the people, how the people see it and how it is to take on the decisions and wishes of the people of Scotland. Amendment No. 36 is about the powers of the Parliament.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East made an unnecessarily divisive speech. He argued that, should another party ever control this Parliament, the Secretary of State would wish to overrule the Parliament of Scotland. That shows that he has not understood the purpose of the Scottish Parliament, which is to embody in a parliamentary institution the will of the people and to show respect to the people. In contrast to what happened in the past 18 years—and unlike the former Member for Stirling—the Secretary of State would have to show respect for the will of the people as set out in the Bills before the Scottish Parliament.
That would be true regardless of party. If was not, it would be a recipe for the final break-up of the Union. If we had not devised the Bill and taken this route, the behaviour of the Conservatives over the past 18 years would have had only one outcome: the people of Scotland would have had to leave this United Kingdom to get respect. In this Parliament, we must show that respect.
I hope that hon. Members will reject amendment No. 196 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East so well put it, it is an unnecessary belt and braces, a veritable straitjacket for the Parliament. If it is necessary in the Parliament that people respect the other parties and accept votes decided by majority, the people will respect the democratic process. A two-thirds majority is not needed to ensure that the people adhere to the directions of the people who will look after the Parliament.
You are currently chairing this Committee, Mr. Lord. It does not matter that you may have been selected to serve by a process carried out behind closed doors; the fact is that when people are chosen to sit in the Chair, Members of Parliament show them the respect they deserve. I hope that the Government will, in some way, take on board amendment No. 36 and leave to the Scottish Parliament the powers that will enable it to take the final decision on matters of symbolic importance.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I must comment first on the wholly remarkable contribution made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It is useful to remember that something described as an horrendous democratic mess and codswallop is based on 1.8 million Scots supporting the proposals in a referendum—that is 74 per cent. of the 60 per cent. of Scots who took the trouble to vote. It is important to put the Bill into the wider context of that endorsement.
I recognise and understand the arguments advanced in respect of amendments Nos. 13 to 15. On the face of it, there are attractions in allowing the Parliament to decide for itself what it wishes to call its Presiding Officer, the First Minister, the Scottish Executive and the Clerk. However, the Government believe that consistency and certainty are essential for the Bill and for future


legislation. The titles proposed are clear and unambiguous and suit the purpose. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept those amendments.
"Presiding Officer" was the title used in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament". The title accurately describes the role of the individual concerned, even though it may lack the poetic aspects of "Speaker", which is used in this House.
Amendment No. 14 would allow the Scottish Parliament to call the Clerk of the Parliament by any title it feels appropriate. We chose the title of Clerk for the senior official of the Parliament as that is a widely used and clearly understood title. Individuals may refer to the Clerk informally by some other title, but it is important that in formal proceedings and in other formal dealings involving the Clerk, the office should be referred to in a clear and consistent way, which does not confuse the office with any other office or position and which ensures that everyone, not least the Clerk himself, knows where they stand. Therefore, we see little benefit in amendment No. 14.
The Government believe that the titles of the Scottish Executive and the First Minister need to be prescribed by statute to maintain consistency in references throughout the Bill and in future legislation. That will also relate to other formal documents through successive Sessions of the new Parliament. The Government are well aware of the speculation about what other titles might be used to describe the First Minister and his ministerial colleagues. We believe that the titles used in the Bill suit the purpose.
We recognise that the Scottish public may well develop their own description for the First Minister and members of the Scottish Executive—[Laughter.] In anticipation of laughter, I was going to say that some of the names they come up with may not be much to our liking. That said, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out that what happens in Scotland will be entirely up to the Scottish press, Scottish media generally and the Scottish people. I recognise the arguments that hon. Members have advanced, but I am not persuaded by them.
The Government believe that the title "First Minister" describes the role clearly and avoids confusion with any other office holder. The Scottish Parliament may, for working purposes, add to the titles of the Scottish Ministers so as to distinguish them according to their respective portfolios. Thus, the Parliament could refer to a particular Scottish Minister as "The Scottish Minister for Housing" or "The Scottish Minister for Education" and so on. Such matters will be dealt with later by the Scottish Parliament. That provides some discretion. Such titles could be used in the day-to-day operation of the Parliament, but would have no formal legal status. Collectively, the members of the Scottish Executive will be known as the Scottish Ministers.
As regards amendment No. 36, the Government believe that one Presiding Officer and two deputies are more than capable of chairing Sessions of the Parliament and ensuring that business runs smoothly. I would ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Connarty: I have taken a particular interest in the running of the Australian Parliament, where a much larger number of people are entitled to serve in the Chair. From

talking to Members of that Parliament, I have learnt that it helps the smooth running of the Parliament to have large numbers of people rotating in that duty; it also helps to ensure that many Members gain experience of chairing the main Chamber. Have we looked further afield than this Parliament for examples?

M. McLeish: In respect of the Presiding Officer and the deputies, I think that the position that we have put forward is the best one. I assure my hon. Friend that we have looked long and hard at several other models and considered several other options. The chairing of Committees in the new Parliament is a matter that has yet to be addressed, but that need not delay our consideration of the Bill.
5.45 pm
Amendment No. 196 would make the election of the Presiding Officer unnecessarily complicated and clearly we cannot accept it. The Government believe that the Presiding Officer and his two deputies should be elected from among Members at a meeting of the Parliament, without fixing in the Bill the majority required. It will be in Members' interest to be present and vote at that election for their Presiding Officer, and a simple majority should be sufficient, although the Parliament itself could provide in its Standing Orders for a higher threshold.
The amendment would set a threshold for the Parliament, and indeed set it a very high level. It would effectively give a veto to a small number of Members in a particular region. I do not believe that there is a need to impose on the Parliament artificial thresholds in electing its own Presiding Officer. I again ask the Committee to reject the amendment. Some hon. Members have talked about the attractions of adopting the term "Speaker" to describe the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, but I invite the House to consider the genuine risk of confusion which could arise if both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament used that term.
I am sure hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that the Government do not accept amendments Nos. 145 to 158 and No. 197. We have consistently made it clear that we envisage the Parliament as being modern, forward-looking, accessible and relevant to today's generation of people living in Scotland. I am not quite sure what is being driven at in the amendments, but I presume that it is a reflection of the term used in the pre-Union Parliament. It seems quite inappropriate to look back in time for old titles when we are looking forward to a new modern Parliament.
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—or the SPCB as it will no doubt be referred to—will look after the housekeeping and administration of the Parliament. Its concept is similar to the arrangements for this House under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 which established the House of Commons Commission as a corporate body for the purposes of appointing staff of the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 also established corporate officers for both Houses of Parliament with powers to hold property and enter into contracts for the respective Houses.
The functions of the SPCB will be wide and varied, ranging from representing the Parliament in legal matters to the organisation of the provision of services such as cleaning services. As the corporate body of the Parliament, the use of the title "corporation" is


appropriate; it is a word recognisable to the public and it will be understood by those dealing with the corporation. "Estaite" on the other hand is neither appropriate nor easily understood in this context. The word estaite is an historical term formerly used in connection with the pre-Union Parliament. It actually referred to the constituents of that Parliament—the clergy, nobility and burgesses—not to its administrative functions. Arguably, there is a close analogy to the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The amendments are therefore misconceived as well as undesirable, and I ask the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) not to press his amendments.
The purpose of amendment No. 218 is to allow a deputy to perform the functions of the Presiding Officer if that office is vacant or if the Presiding Officer is unable to act. As it stands, clause 18 requires the Standing Orders to make provision for a Member of the Parliament to exercise the Presiding Officer's functions if the post falls vacant during the period when Parliament is dissolved. However, that would not allow provision to be made covering a vacancy or incapacity that might arise when the Parliament is dissolved. My proposed amendment would allow the Presiding Officer's functions to be exercised by a deputy in such circumstances, as well as at other times when a vacancy or incapacity arises.
The amendment ensures that there is at all times someone who can exercise the Presiding Officer's functions and it also makes it clear that it should be an elected deputy rather than any other Member of the Parliament who should exercise those functions in the event of the Presiding Officer's incapacity or if the office of Presiding Officer is vacant. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Gorrie: I am grateful to those hon. Members who have given support to the general thrust of our idea that the Scottish Parliament should be enabled to decide the matters that we have been discussing. There was support for the idea from hon. Members on both sides, although—as usual—none from Conservative Members. I take comfort in the fact that, whatever parents may choose to call their children and put on the baptismal certificate, when the child grows up he or she decides what he or she wishes to be called.
I was very entertained by the suggestions of the "auld alliance" about going in for French titles, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had not strayed as far as Italy; it would not be helpful to have the premier, or whatever, of Scotland described as a prima donna.
I believe that many hon. Members share my disappointment that the Government are persisting with their prescriptive attitude and preventing the sensible amendments to allow the Scottish Parliament to change the name officially as well as unofficially, but no one has ever prevented the Scottish public from saying anything about anything. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 218, page 9, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 7 and insert
The Presiding Officer's functions may be exercised by a deputy'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: When the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body starts the process of selecting a Clerk and Deputy Clerk, will they be head-hunted from those who have expertise in the House of Commons? [Interruption.] They will not necessarily, because there are experts in Edinburgh who have been working in devolution and who were Clerks in the House. Are they to be paid on the same basis as Clerks in the House?

Mr. McLeish: I think at this stage those details have not been worked out, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking for both expertise and excellence. It will be up to the Parliament to seek the best person for the job, and my hon. Friend's comments show that he too wants that.

Mr. Dalyell: But timing is important, because presumably the Clerk and Deputy Clerk must be in place before the Parliament sits, in 1999.

Mr. McLeish: I think that the Government understand that. We are proceeding now to get the Bill on to the statute book. We have set up several committees to look at the nuts and bolts of the way in which the Parliament will work. Obviously, that level of detail—that type of very important issue—will be tackled at a very early day. If we are holding the elections on 6 May 1999, a tremendous amount of work must be done before then, and I think I can reassure my hon. Friend that attention will be paid to the matters that he has raised.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I appreciate what the Minister says, but it goes further than that, does it not? Who will make the appointment? For instance, in Northern Ireland, as I noted when we visited Stormont, there is a Clerk of a potential Northern Ireland assembly, who has been in residence for many years. Will the appointment be made by the House, by Ministers? Will it be done by the Secretary of State for Scotland or left to the Scottish Parliament? In any case, it will have to be done well before the Parliament starts sitting.

Mr. McLeish: The obvious points have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and of course they are appreciated. The Parliament is a serious business, and indeed the Parliament will establish the post of Clerk. We are anxious to pass the legislation. In parallel with that, we are setting up several consultative groups and committees to ensure that we discuss those details. There is no ambiguity, and no one sitting anywhere has a locus on that job at present. We accept that expertise is important; we want the best in the Scottish Parliament. That will be the objective.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 9, line 33, after 'purposes', insert
', including any simultaneous interpretation and translation staff and facilities required in order to give effect to paragraph 3A, of Schedule 3'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 119, in schedule 3, page 57, line 31, at end add—"The Gaelic and the Scots Languages—
3A.— The standing orders shall provide that any member of the Parliament shall be entitled to use the Gaelic or the Scots language in the proceedings of the Parliament (including its committees), in official documents, and in correspondence with constituents.'.
No. 35, in page 57, line 45, at end add—"The Gaelic Language—
6. The standing orders shall include provision for facilitating the use of the Gaelic language, where appropriate, in the proceedings and the publications of the Parliament.'.

Mrs. Ewing: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 118 and 119, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am pleased also to note that amendment No. 35, in the name of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), is grouped with them.
It is important to start by pointing out that, throughout the many years that I have served in this place, there has been a very broad consensus, spanning both sides of the House, on the protection and enhancement of the Gaelic language and, indeed, the Scots language.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), is on the Treasury Bench. I hope that, in view of that consensus, we shall receive from him tonight a response that takes account of the sentiments and principles that are contained in the amendments. It is vital that our first languages are seen as very important in a new Scottish Parliament. It is appropriate that we are discussing these issues during the season of Burns suppers, which many hon. Members will be well aware of. We are all stappit to the gunnells with haggis, bashed neeps and champit tatties, washed down with a good wee nip of uisge beatha. It is appropriate that we should be using these words at this stage because they are natural words to all Scottish Members.
I remember that, when I was a student at the university of Glasgow, where I read English language and literature, I found myself in a strange lecture in which the lecturer thought that he knew all the answers. He kept throwing out words at the students to see if we could understand what he was saying. I found myself in almost an isolationist position, because when he used phrases like "sneck the yett," or being "oot o kilter," or "It is a mochy day," I knew exactly what he meant. Those words were as natural to me as breathing.
It is wrong for us ever to feel like indulging in mockery against the use of good Scots words or the Gaelic language. An element of mockery came back to me from that class, as though I were a strange person from another planet because I understood those words—as though that was inappropriate.
Similar mockery has often greeted the Gaelic language. Many hon. Members know that my predecessor as parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party was the very much respected Donald Stewart, the then Member for the Western Isles. His much respected wife, Chrissie, who did a great deal of work in a political context, told me that, as a youngster, she was forced to wear a wooden necklace as a punishment for speaking her native Gaelic as her first language in school. That mockery, and such demeaning of a language, is unacceptable.
I do not claim to be a fluent Gaelic speaker or to be an expert on the language. I suspect that, like many others, I can say "slainte" and "slainte mhath" and manage to get through some conversations in the islands and other Gaelic-speaking areas—including Glasgow, where there are probably more Gaelic speakers than in some of the islands.
I would just say to the House, "De ma tha daoine ag iarraidh bruidhinn anns a Gháidhlig," which means, "What if people want to speak Gaelic?"

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Lady goes further, perhaps I may read a brief extract from "Erskine May":
Speeches must be made in English, but quotation in another language has been allowed on occasion, though a translation should be provided.
I trust that the hon. Lady will now give us the translation.

Mrs. Ewing: I actually gave a translation: "What if people want to speak Gaelic?" I think, Mr. Lord, that you have made my point, because, to the vast majority of people in Scotland, Gaelic is not a foreign language but their native language—their first language. Amendment No. 118 would not compel anyone to speak in Gaelic. The issue is the right of native Gaelic speakers to use their language, in a Scottish Parliament, with translation facilities available.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the hon. Lady reconsider her statement that the vast majority of her fellow Scots can speak and understand Gaelic? That is not my impression. The vast majority of Scots may well be sympathetic to the position of those who can speak Gaelic and wish to continue to do so, but it is not correct to say that the vast majority can use it.

Mrs. Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman probably understands, that was a slight slip of the tongue. The vast majority of native Gaelic speakers expect it to be their right to communicate in Gaelic. I have stated clearly that I am not seeking any form of compulsion. The hon. Gentleman must know that in a constituency such as his, there are many, many native Gaelic speakers who want their language to be used in the Scottish Parliament.
The amendments do not seek any form of compulsion. Let me say to all the bluffelheids who do not understand either Scots or Gaelic that I will not force bluffelheids to learn Gaelic, or Gaels to learn either the Doric or the Gaelic. All I want is a recognition of all those languages in the proceedings of the new Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Connarty: rose—

Mrs. Ewing: I give way to the bluffelheid.

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Lady started with a good argument for providing support for people who wish to


use Gaelic—I see the case for using it in reply to constituents, for example—but to argue that people should have the facility to use Gaelic in the debates of a Parliament, the majority of whose Members will be non-Gaelic speakers and will not understand Gaelic, is to demean the entire case. If Members want to stand up, speak to others and convince them in a debate, as the hon. Lady is doing now, surely they must speak in a language that everyone understands, so that the discussion can proceed. It will only mystify the process if a Member is allowed to ring himself round with a language that no one else understands.

6 pm

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has shown that he has not read the amendments carefully. Had he done so, he would realise that his comments are irrelevant to the discussion. Other countries use such facilities. I am asking for a policy that ensures the reasonable use of Scotland's languages, which would require only a tiny share of the operating budget of the Scottish Parliament.
Parliaments around the world, both state legislatures—for example, in Switzerland, Ireland, Canada and India—and federal institutions such as regional Parliaments in Galicia and Catalonia, have adopted policies permitting the use of more than one language in legislative debates. I accept the complexities of achieving that, but I argue strongly that such facilities should be available to the Members of the Scottish Parliament and to their constituents when they wish to communicate with them.
That would not necessarily require all speeches to be translated into Gaelic or Scots. We all accept that English would probably be the main language in the Scottish Parliament. The cost of making available a translation facility for native Gaelic or Scots speakers, compared with the translation costs of the European Union as it expands, would be minimal. It is not much to ask.
The amendments seek simple and inexpensive ways to respect our languages. Any Member should have the right to use Gaelic or Scots in the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, should she or he so choose. The Scottish Parliament should follow a formal policy of actively promoting the use of Gaelic and Scots in its documents, especially, but not exclusively, in documents intended for distribution to the public.

Miss Anne Begg: I am a little confused. Will the hon. Lady clarify what she means by the Scots language? She has talked about the Doric and the dialect languages of Scotland. Is she referring to standard Scots, which does not yet exist, or exists only in history? What language will the simultaneous translation be in? Most people who live in Scotland do not speak a pure form of Scots. They may be able to read it, but they certainly cannot speak it.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Lady has opened a debate which has defied many people who have tried to write their PhD thesis on the definition of the Scots language. She and I, both representing seats in the north-east of Scotland, would recognise that there are words that are difficult to translate into English, but which have a particular

significance for the people in our area. Lallans, the language from the borders, which was my father's language, is slightly different, but there are many nuances that are similar to the Doric. Such words encapsulate emotions and ideas, and the right to use them in a Scottish Parliament is extremely important to us. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that.

Mr. Ancram: I am listening to the hon. Lady, and I understand that she is trying to provide for simultaneous translation machinery. How is it possible to simultaneously translate a word which, as she has just said, is incapable of translation into English? Also, how would she deal with the language of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who slips effortlessly between Scottish and English during most of his speeches in the House?

Mrs. Ewing: That is a really silly comment from the right hon. Gentleman, given his Scottish roots. He must be well aware of certain words used daily in the Scottish context that do not stand easy, direct or 100 per cent. effective translation, but are meaningful to people.
One of the few pleasures of working in this place for almost 18 years is to have listened to hon. Members from other areas of the United Kingdom, who have used particular words that were important to their areas and regions. All that I am asking for is the right of our people in Scotland to use words freely, without being interrupted by the First Minister, the Premier, or the Speaker. As we have heard, we are interrupted if we try to use words in Gaelic, Doric or Lallans because it is not the automatic language of this House.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: rose—

Mr. Eric Clarke: rose—

Mrs. Ewing: I am sorry. I am trying to be brief, because there are important issues coming up. I have set out my argument clearly.
Constituents should have the right to correspond with their MSPs in Gaelic or Scots without unreasonable delay. Gaelic and Scots should have high visibility in the Scottish Parliament—for example, on our notepaper and all the signs. There should be a structure for the provision and permanent employment of professional Gaelic and Scots translators. Simultaneous translation equipment should be available for MSPs who wish to use Gaelic or Scots. The Scottish equivalent of Hansard, which I assume we will have, should print any Gaelic or Scots spoken in the House, with the English translation of the text.
Over many years in the House, I have worked with the cross-party Gaelic group. I have worked with many people from different parties. We have always argued for the support of our languages and cultures, irrespective of which Government were in power. Many of us spent long hours arguing the case. Together, and with support from the European Union, we have achieved a great deal for the languages.
The amendments do not ask for anything unreasonable or unworkable. Past consensus and the aspirations for future consensus, about which we hear so much, can surely fuse in the amendments.
Policies to ensure that Scotland's traditional languages survive and flourish in the new millennium are essential. The opening of a new Parliament provides an historic opportunity to create an exciting role for our national languages in the life of our nation. A flexible approach that is open-minded, creative, realistic and practical is required. Sin e.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has spoken passionately, seriously and sincerely. It being a serious amendment rather than a probing amendment, I make two points.
I was a member of the indirectly elected European Parliament and I can promise the hon. Lady that the costs of simultaneous translation are mind-boggling. Does the Minister agree with the hon. Lady that we are talking about minimal costs? Like every other Scottish Member, I have increasing constituency demands for Gaelic tuition in central Scotland which turns out to be expensive. As a result, I have discovered that there is a shortage of Gaelic teachers and, doubtless, translators.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman does the lottery or the football pools, he will be familiar with the concepts of permutations or combinations. In other words, if 15 languages are being translated into 15 other languages, that will require a lot of resources because it is 152. If one language is being translated, the costs will be much smaller. The European Parliament, which, by definition, has to translate many languages, is not a good comparison in terms of the costs of the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I was the one who said that speeches should be short because there are so many other matters with which to deal, so I just ask what the Government view is of the hon. Lady's claim that her amendment will give rise to only minimal costs. I do not know the answer.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I shall speak to amendment No. 35 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. It is similar in content, although perhaps more cautious, than that tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I should first congratulate her on her gallant efforts in using the Gaelic language and the Scots tongue in the debate. I assume that she has carefully written out the correct spelling of what she said for the benefit of the Official Report.
My amendment would give a strong signal that the Scottish Parliament would seriously develop policies for the future of the language. It would give a lead by including in the Bill the words:
provision for facilitating the use of the Gaelic language, where appropriate, in the proceedings and the publications of the Parliament.
The two words "where appropriate" are important, because, at this stage, I do not know, and I do not think that the Minister knows, how many Gaelic speakers there are likely to be in the Parliament. I hope that there will be a number, but, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), will not be there, there may not be too many. We need to nail the lie peddled by some, to which the hon. Member for Moray referred, that Gaelic will be forced down anyone's throat, Gael or non-Gael. Hours of compulsory evening classes for adults or mandatory teaching in schools are not on the agenda.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Scottish Parliament to provide facilities for those who, for example, are called to give evidence, perhaps to a Committee, so that they can do so in their native tongue. That will not be a costly business. It may happen once every six months or so.
If the Parliament had facilities for simultaneous translation, representatives from the Gaidhealtachd or from Europe would be able to speak in their native tongue. Someone from Catalonia might prefer to speak in Catalan and would be able to do so.
I would expect a Parliament geared to the 21st century and using all the modern technologies available to be able to provide those facilities. We have heard from the Secretary of State how the Scottish Parliament will be modern, using high-tech communications, and so on.
This is an important matter because, as is said from time to time, this may be the last chance saloon for saving the language from gradually declining into oblivion. Whether we succeed only time will tell. I am sorry that the Minister for—

Mrs. Ewing: Gaelic.

Mrs. Michie: —Gaelic, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, is not here because he gave strong indications of his support, particularly for the status of Gaelic.
I hope that Ministers will appreciate that I have not tried to complicate the Bill by including an amendment on the status of Gaelic, or the legal position of Gaelic as opposed to English, because that is a complicated matter. I hope that the Minister for Gaelic will come forward with ideas in the near future as he said.

Mr. Ancram: Given what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said in the previous debate, if ever there was a matter that should be decided by the Scottish Parliament and not by this Committee, is it not this one?

Mrs. Michie: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but we want to put this small measure in the Bill so that it shows that the Government have taken on board a concern for the future of Gaelic.
Good progress has been made in the past 10 years or so. The Minister for Gaelic paid tribute to the Conservative Government during the last 10 years because they did a lot to help the Gaelic language.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does the hon. Lady have any idea how many Gaelic speakers are not fluent and skilled in the English language? Who will decide what is appropriate? Does she have a definition of when it would be appropriate to use the Gaelic language. As far as I can see, the amendment is wide and would not be helpful to the Parliament.

Mrs. Michie: Only a few now speak Gaelic, but it is not so long ago that my husband went to school as a five-year-old not speaking a word of English. However, he became a consultant physician, so it was not a deterrent to him in the end.
The hon. Lady says that the amendment is not helpful, but it would be helpful to people who speak Gaelic as their main language if they were to come to the Parliament. I am not saying that the proceedings in the Chamber should be conducted in Gaelic, but if such people were to speak to a Committee, they might wish to do so in their native language, not in a foreign tongue.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Lady agree that the attitude evinced by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) of "Let them speak English" is precisely why the speaking of Gaelic has declined and has the status that it has today?

Mrs. Michie: The hon. Lady makes a good point.
I acknowledge that good progress has been made. There are some excellent Gaelic-medium units in schools, jobs have been created in the media and there is an increasing awareness of the urgent need for more teachers able to teach through the medium of Gaelic. It has been established beyond doubt that children who are bilingual by the age of five, six or seven find it much easier to learn another language. The Minister for Gaelic, who also has responsibility for education, said recently that he was disturbed about the poor standard of language learning in Scottish schools; he should endorse the fact that those who are bilingual are more likely to learn other languages. I believe that, if the Bill were amended, it would give a strong signal.
There has been an expansion, too, in the Gaelic "economy" over the past decade, including jobs in education, broadcasting, publishing, administration, the arts, tourism, as well as in the various Gaelic agencies and, of course, the national Mod, which in 1995 attracted some 2,000 entries from home and abroad.
The amendments show the need for the Bill to contain a commitment to the language. Some will ask, "Why?"—

Mr. Ernie Ross: Why?

Mrs. Michie: Because of its value and its worth, not just to Scotland but to the United Kingdom and Europe—indeed, the whole world; there are many Gaelic speakers in Canada, for example—and it has an historic obligation. I have paraphrased what the Minister for Gaelic said in the House.
Since the 18th century—indeed, since the Union of the Parliaments—Gaelic has suffered enormously. People in power methodically set about eradicating Gaelic culture and consciousness. In many schools and playgrounds, the mother tongue was forbidden. It has a wealth of literature, music, poetry and song. Its culture and tradition enhance and enrich the heart and soul of this nation. We would be Philistines if we allowed that to die. That is why I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response to the amendments. I look forward to his reply.

Mrs. McKenna: It is important to put on record my support for the Gaelic language. The last Gaelic language unit that the Minister opened was in my constituency, and I have long supported the provision of Gaelic for young children. At one time, there was a pre-school unit in my constituency. A neighbouring constituency still has one,

and the children, on reaching school age, come to the unit within a school in my constituency, so I support the Gaelic language, and have long done so.
The point that I was making is that it will be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to decide, as and when it feels necessary, to make provision for Gaelic, but there is absolutely no need for that at the moment. There is no need to amend the Bill.
Amendment No. 35 is not helpful, because it says "where appropriate." There is no specific guidance on what that means. It should be for Members of the Scottish Parliament to decide. The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said that I was saying, "Let them speak English." That is not the case. However, it is a fact, as the hon. Lady admitted, that few people speak only Gaelic. Once they get to school, there are probably no people who speak only Gaelic. I understand the point that she is making, but if Members of the Scottish Parliament, or people who come to address the Parliament, wish to speak in the Gaelic language, it should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide, not this House.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I support the speaking of Gaelic. I encourage it, and if it is expensive, so be it. When I was youngster, I was annoyed that I was taught by teachers who told me—battered it into me—to speak properly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Proper."] Not proper, properly. One of those teachers was a highlander and a Gaelic speaker. She did not accept that, as far as we were concerned, we were speaking the Doric, the local language. I was bilingual. What I said at home and what I said in the playground were totally different from what I said to the teachers, because I learn the hard way—if we did not speak properly, we were thumped. [Interruption.] She might not have made a very good job of it.
On a practical matter, will hon. Members who go to the new Parliament have to be bilingual, as they are in Ireland and Canada? If so, that will cut back on recruitment for the majority of people who I hope will get back into Scotland, or for those who are in Scotland itself. I was on the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, with Welsh-speaking members who thought in Welsh and had to translate into English. It is easy to say that they are bilingual, but I am thinking of someone who used to have to think it out and then translate it in his head, and, of course, there was a delay. He was not a computer—

Mr. Canavan: Was that Scargill?

Mr. Clarke: No, I would never have understood what Scargill said. I am being facetious. He is a good friend of mine. I am still friendly with him. I jumped at the bait there.
We are not talking about a dialect; Gaelic is a language. I was thinking about the late Dai Francis, who was general secretary of the Welsh miners.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I am sure that people who become Members of the Scottish Parliament will be sympathetic to Gaelic speakers. I certainly hope they will. I hope that she gets what she wants, but there will be practicalities and difficulties involved. It is really for the Scottish Parliament to sort it out.

Mr. Grieve: I do not want it to be thought that no Conservative has said anything on this subject, because I endorse every word that has said by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna), who spoke about the beauty of the Gaelic language. Although I understand it extremely imperfectly, I enjoy hearing it spoken when I am up in Scotland. I certainly enjoy trying to pronounce correctly the names of the mountains that I climb.
It seems to me to be a matter for the Scottish Assembly to decide—

Mrs. Ewing: Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the hon. Lady. That is what comes from going from the Government of Wales Bill to the Scotland Bill. It is for the Scottish Parliament to decide.
I disagree with the point that was made about the Scottish tongue. My ancestors spoke Lallands, but having listened to a number of hon. Members—in particular the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham), who is not present—I have never had too much difficulty understanding what people from Scotland have to say. I can think of no occasion when someone speaking a Scots version of English in the House has ever been told that they are out of order. Indeed, the Secretary of State slips into "Scoticisms" frequently. I find it difficult to see the need for interpreters. It would simply be the case that in the Scottish Parliament, the note would be reproduced verbatim.

Mr. Salmond: On the subject of notes, both the Secretary of State and myself, and any other hon. Member who occasionally slips in Scots words, will get notes from the Hansard reporters. The hon. Gentleman might claim to understand the words that we use, but the Hansard writers have some difficulty with them.

Mr. Grieve: I am bound to say that, very occasionally, perhaps due to an excess of legalese in English, one gets a note from the Hansard writer who is unable to understand some use, or misuse, of the English language.

Mr. Salmond: That is just the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grieve: That may be so, but I have never considered that a serious problem. In these circumstances, I would leave that problem to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. McLeish: I must confess that I am not a Gaelic speaker. When I was a youngster, surviving in Fife and speaking English were major challenges, which I hope I tackled reasonably well.
The Scottish Office team can claim an historic first because nearly 33 per cent. of Ministers there now speak Gaelic. We shall need some simultaneous interpretation ourselves if there are further developments on that front.
The proposed regional member system will give us seven new Members from the highlands and islands. Clearly, the prospect of having more Gaelic speakers in the Parliament will be enhanced by that.
We sympathise with the spirit and most of the substance of the points made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We already have in mind interpretation and translation facilities for occasions when a visiting foreign dignitary wishes to address the Parliament in his native tongue. That is important for the spirit of internationalism that we want to bring to the new politics in Scotland. We also recognise that some Members may wish to use Gaelic or Scots, and that translation facilities could be required in that context.
However, it would be best left to the Parliament, through the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, to decide the staffing requirements, and to decide whether we shall need permanent translators and interpreters, and to what extent they should be provided. Should the Parliament decide that, where appropriate, its proceedings could be in Gaelic and Scots, or that Members could use Gaelic and Scots, the Standing Orders could make the appropriate provision, and the SPCB could make the necessary arrangements.
The Scottish Office supports use of the Gaelic language and is trying to promote it through education and broadcasting. It is providing £2.2 million in specific grants to education authorities for Gaelic-medium education. More than 1,700 pupils in 50 primary schools in Scotland receive Gaelic-medium education. In addition, more than 200 children in secondary schools receive some Gaelic-medium education.
This is not the time to discuss that policy, but we are happy to take on board the suggestions that have been made. The consultative steering group, which I chair and which has representatives from all parties, would like an early opportunity to consider this issue. In that spirit, I should like the hon. Member for Moray to make a contribution to that steering group. Although we cannot accept the amendment, I hope that in the spirit of consensus and co-operation that is being offered, we can work together and take the matter forward. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment, in which case we shall be happy to enter into dialogue at an early stage.

Mrs. Ewing: In the light of the Minister's comments, I am willing to ensure that substantial submissions are made to the Procedure Committee. They will be made not just by me, but by many organisations with a more extensive knowledge of the issue than I have.
It was important to raise this issue and to reassure people that the door is not being closed on the possibility of having those facilities in our new Scottish Parliament. I was interested to note that 33 per cent. of the Scottish Office team claim to speak Gaelic. In the light of the very good comments made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), there is a Gaelic saying:
Not all the mischief lies with Bute; some of it is in Cumbrae hardby.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY

Question proposed, That this schedule be the second schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish to make a substantial point on this schedule in relation to the independence of Clerks. The schedule provides for the establishment of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is broadly modelled on the House of Commons Commission, established by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Schedule 2 makes further provision for the SPCB. It is uncontentious, except that the Clerks of the Parliament are referred to as "staff", while their opposite numbers at Westminster are referred to as "officers".
There are two issues within the schedule. First, unlike the House of Commons arrangements, the Clerk of the Parliament and Assistant Clerks are to be appointed by the SPCB under clause 19(2) and paragraph 3(1) of schedule 2. Under the 1978 Act, the Clerk, any Clerk Assistant, the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker's personal staff are not appointed by the House of Commons Commission. In practice, the personal staff of the Speaker have the 1978 Act applied to them, although the Speaker retains the power to appoint such staff and to determine their tenure of office.
The Clerk of the House of Commons is appointed by the Crown for life, by letters patent; the Clerk Assistant is appointed by the Crown, under the sign manual, on the Speaker's recommendation, and is removable only upon an address of the House of Commons. The appointment of the Serjeant at Arms is a gift of the Queen under a warrant from the Lord Chamberlain, and the duties are prescribed by patent under the Great Seal. The significance of that is that the senior officers of the House of Commons have a degree of independence, which is an important consideration in giving advice on what may be politically contentious matters.
Are the Government convinced that the same independence is guaranteed at Holyrood? The background may be arcane, but the nub issue is the independence of the Clerks.
My second point is that, unlike the 1978 Act, no specific provision appears to have been made to apply employment legislation to those employed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Are those employed by the SPCB employed at the pleasure of the Crown, under general employment law, or are they subject to instructions given to the SPCB by the Scottish Parliament?
If the Minister wants to reflect on those complicated matters and give me an answer on Report, he will have no complaint from me.

Mr. McLeish: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the independence that is required, and I want to reassure him on that point. Paragraph 3(3) of schedule 2 says:
It is for the corporation to determine the terms and conditions of appointment of the staff of the Parliament, including arrangements for the payment of pensions".

That is written into the Bill and that is what will happen.
On my hon. Friend's second question about employment conditions, I think that what he said will apply, but I should like to get some details on the matter before responding.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 21

STANDING ORDERS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Government confirm that the sub judice rule will be the same in relation to proceedings of the Scottish Parliament as it is in the House of Commons? They may be unable to bind the Scottish Parliament because of Standing Orders. What are the Speaker's rights and privileges in relation to withdrawing the rights and privileges of a Member for a period of exclusion?
That question is not purely hypothetical. As the Secretary of State may recollect, when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Anthony Crosland and I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman, I got into a great deal of trouble with the Privileges Committee over Porton, and chemical and biological weapons—even in those days. I got the rough end of the Privileges Committee. The question of exclusion has not just been whisked out of the air, and clause 21 gives us cause for reflection.

Mr. McLeish: We shall discuss sub judice next. Clearly, there will be a duty on the Scottish Parliament. There will also be a duty on the Parliament to ensure that exclusions are dealt with under Standing Orders. It is an important relationship, which must be defined, and that will be taken care of.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

STANDING ORDERS—FURTHER PROVISION

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 219, in schedule 3, page 57, line 17, after 'for', insert "(a)'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 220 and 221.
No. 34, in page 57, line 45, leave out 'Cornwall' and insert Rothesay'.

Mr. McLeish: The purpose of amendments Nos. 219 and 220 is to make it quite clear that the Scottish Parliament will be required to make provision in its Standing Orders for a sub judice rule.
Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 already requires the Parliament to include in its Standing Orders provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Parliament, including provision for preventing conduct that would constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court.
In reviewing this schedule, the Government have concluded that it does not impose a sufficiently clear requirement on the Scottish Parliament to make provision for a sub judice rule. Without such a rule, the Presiding Officer could be left in considerable doubt as to whether to make a determination to the effect that discussion would be likely to constitute a contempt of court and should therefore be prevented. Discussion may be justified on the grounds that it is incidental to a discussion in good faith of public affairs, and that would make it difficult for the presiding officer to act unless he or she had all the details and circumstances of the particular case. For that reason, there is a serious risk that discussion would take place and that criminal proceedings would be prejudiced before the presiding officer was able to make his or her decision.
The Government are conscious that the solution to this problem must balance three factors: first, the legitimate discretion of the Parliament over the creation of its own Standing Orders; secondly, the importance of preventing public discussion of matters that would result in prejudicing court proceedings, thus damaging the workability of the judicial system in Scotland; and, thirdly, the need to maintain the right to freedom of speech in line with rights under the European convention on human rights.
We have concluded that the best way in which to deal with this point is to require the Scottish Parliament to establish Standing Orders relating to sub judice, but to leave those Standing Orders to be developed in line with those three considerations. Account will, no doubt, be taken of the sub judice resolution that applies to proceedings of the House of Commons.
Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 simply insert a requirement into paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 that the Scottish Parliament must make provision in its Standing Orders for a sub judice rule. It will be left to the Parliament to determine the details of that rule. A responsible Parliament must make provision to ensure that proper discussion of public affairs does not prejudice court proceedings. The amendments will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has to make appropriate provision.
Amendment No. 221 will allow the Standing Orders to make provision for the withholding of rights and privileges, including salary and allowances, from any Member of the Scottish Parliament in respect of any period during which he or she is excluded under Standing Orders relating to the preservation of order.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I want to speak to my amendment No. 34, which would alter the clause so that it refers to the Duke of Rothesay instead of to the Duke of Cornwall in the paragraph referring to Crown interests and the requirement of royal consent for a Bill. One of Prince Charles's titles is that of Duke of Rothesay, and it would be more appropriate for that Scottish title to be used instead of the title Duke of Cornwall. It would be a gesture of some sensitivity, as Rothesay will this year celebrate the fact that 600 years ago, in 1498, King Robert III conferred the title on his eldest son, David, and it has been borne by the sovereign's eldest son ever since. It would be a tribute to the town of Rothesay, which in 2001 celebrates 600 years as a royal burgh.
The title of Duke of Rothesay would also be a fitting tribute to the Prince of Wales. It is entirely appropriate that a Bill that re-establishes the Scottish Parliament

should refer to the heir to the throne as the Duke of Rothesay. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but it is only small, and he has not accepted any amendments so far. He may say that he cannot accept it because of the archaic rules on titles, lines of succession, and heirs and successors, about which I know little and understand even less. Rules can be altered, however, particularly archaic rules. I ask him to seek an audience with the Queen.

Mr. McLeish: And with the Keeper of the Seal.

Mrs. Michie: Indeed. The Minister should ask the Queen whether it is in her power to change the rules. It would not lead to the end of the House of Windsor or to the demise of the Scottish Office and all its Ministers, no matter how close they will be to Holyrood house.
I ask the Minister to give the amendment serious consideration. It would be better if the Bill referred to Prince Charles as the Duke of Rothesay. The town of Rothesay would be delighted if the Minister accepted the amendment.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister explain why there has to be any reference to the Duke of Cornwall, to the Duke of Rothesay or to Her Majesty the Queen? Why should the strengthening of democracy represented by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament be watered down by making Bills passed by that democratic Parliament subject to the assent of people who are unelected?

Mr. Dalyell: I think it pretty churlish of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) not to mention all those famous conferences of the Scottish Labour party that have taken place at Rothesay. Those of us who have braved the boat back in choppy waters feel quite strongly—[Interruption.] I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just said sotto voce, but I think he remembers one of those occasions.
What prompted the Government to table amendment No. 221? I am not saying that the drafting was bad or defective, but I should like to know whether there was a reason for the afterthought. It is not an unimportant amendment.

Mr. Salmond: I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I think that both of us have been victims in the sense of having our rights and privileges withdrawn.
I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will appreciate that, if a Member's rights and privileges must be withdrawn—which they may well have to be—the matter must come before the whole Parliament rather than being disposed of by Whips, Committees or anything of that nature.
Amendment No. 220 refers to a sub judice rule. I know that amendment No. 221 deals with the question of rights and privileges, but I should like to hear from the Minister that the Parliament will have the right to be protected from defamation actions. That is an essential prerequisite for any Parliament.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke of braving the waters. I am certain that he knows the exact latitude and longitude and the direction of the boat, as he knows all about naval vessels at sea. The Scottish National party is


the party that most recently held an annual conference at Rothesay, and a tremendous place it was, too—and a tremendous conference.
Just over a year ago, we attended a ceremony marking the return of the Stone of Destiny. Numerous people of whom I had never heard were higher in the order of precedence than the Secretary of State for Scotland—or, for that matter, the Scottish First Minister-to-be—and certainly higher than any lowly Member of Parliament. There was for instance, the Gold Stick for Scotland, who I had always thought was the snooker player Mr. Hendry.

Mr. Dalyell: The Gold Stick in Waiting.

Mr. Salmond: The Gold Stick in Waiting as well. I learn something every day.
I wish that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had drafted her amendment No. 34 more widely, to establish whether the Scottish Parliament could dispose of some of these unnecessary titles of which no one has heard, and which should not clutter up the scene in case anyone mistakes their holders for people who have been elected or have a democratic mandate, or a right to carry a gold stick or anything else.
As for the Government amendments, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that he will not be sending all the bad boys and girls away for two weeks without due process, and that Parliament will be protected from defamation actions, as any genuinely inquisitorial Parliament must be.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister explain why schedule 3(5) is needed? Why would some Bills require the consent of Her Majesty, the Prince and Steward of Scotland or the Duke of Cornwall—who, I have now learnt, is also the Duke of Rothesay? I know who Her Majesty is, but who on earth is the Prince and Steward of Scotland? When did the people of Scotland ever elect any prince or steward for Scotland, and why does that person's consent have to be sought before a Scottish Bill becomes the law of the land?

Mr. McLeish: I can tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the MSPs will be covered in regard to defamation. I believe that we shall be having further discussions about privilege at a later stage.
Let me reply to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about amendment No. 221. Clause 76 requires the Parliament to
make provision for the payment of salaries to members of the Parliament",
but it does not expressly make provision for the withdrawal of any salary when a Member is excluded. In view of the powers that the Parliament has to make provision in the Standing Orders for excluding a Member, under schedule 3(1), it is considered that those powers should be supplemented by a general power providing that such a Member should lose his rights and privileges, including his salary. That reinforces the nature of exclusion as a punishment and a deterrent, and is similar to the powers relating to Members of this Parliament. Let me tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as a

postscript, that it will be a matter for the Parliament; nothing will be done behind closed doors to the disadvantage of natural justice.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) complemented that of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who made such a compelling case that it troubles me greatly to have to disappoint her. Of course we all celebrate the 500th anniversary of the first application of the title Duke of Rothesay to the sovereign's eldest son, but I am afraid that that is not a satisfactory basis on which to accept her amendment.
The provision in schedule 3(5) places Bills of the Scottish Parliament in the same position as Bills of the Westminster Parliament in terms of their requirement to obtain the consent of Her Majesty, the Prince and Steward of Scotland or the Duke of Cornwall when a provision in a Bill impacts on certain Crown interests. There is no duty in Westminster to obtain the consent of the Duke of Rothesay, and I therefore cannot accept the amendment, which would place an unnecessary duty on the Scottish Parliament. To delete the reference to Cornwall would remove that duty to obtain consent, and would subject Bills of a Scottish Parliament to different arrangements in respect of Crown interests from those pertaining at Westminster.

Mr. Wallace: What interests, if any, has the Duke of Cornwall in Scotland?

Mr. McLeish: The point is being made in relation to what exists, but also in relation to what could happen in the future.

Mr. Grieve: Could we not just refer to "the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay"? I think that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had a point. I also appreciate the need to stay on a par with procedure in this Parliament, but I wondered whether the Minister would consider my suggestion, which would reflect the status of the heir to the throne in Scotland.

Mr. McLeish: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I understood that the Minister was still making his speech, and had given way. Is that correct?

Mr. McLeish: I had finished my speech, Sir Alan.
A serious point is involved here. We are trying to achieve consistency in the submission of Bills. Of course we are talking about a similar person, but, ultimately, I do not think that it is for us to depart from the present arrangements, although there may be good historical and other reasons, which other hon. Members have advanced.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Minister has just sat down; is the hon. Gentleman trying to catch my eye?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, Sir Alan.
Instead of making an intervention, I shall make a very short speech.
It strikes me that, as the Duke of Rothesay is the Duke of Cornwall, it really does not matter which title is in the Bill, and I therefore do not understand why the Government are unhappy about using the words "Duke of Rothesay". Do they fear that at some future stage the two titles may separate, and not be held by the same person? That is an interesting diversion on which we could speculate, but I do not think it likely. As the Duke of Rothesay is the Duke of Cornwall, what on earth is wrong with using that title in the Bill?

Mr. Canavan: The situation is becoming more confusing as the debate continues. Since my earlier speech, I have been informed, albeit informally, that the Prince and Steward of Scotland is also the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Cornwall, and the Duke of Rothesay. Why on earth should he get two mentions when even his mum gets only one—and now it is suggested that he should have three mentions?

Mr. Ancram: There is obviously some concern. The Minister is not known for being particularly flexible on occasions such as this, but on this occasion, will he take the proposal away and look at it?

Mr. McLeish: Some interesting comments have been made, but we are not inclined to accept amendment No. 34.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister is being rather inflexible. Several points have been made in the debate, and the Bill still has a few stages to go. Without giving a commitment, perhaps he and his officials will examine the matter. It does seem that there is rather a surfeit of titles for the Duke of Cornwall, and perhaps a slimming down or the addition of "Rothesay" will satisfy the concerned hon. Members. Perhaps the Minister will re-examine particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

Dr. Liam Fox: I fully appreciate the position that the Minister now finds himself in—he probably does not have a contingency note for the constitutional crisis now engulfing him. However, I believe that it is unnecessarily brittle to reject out of hand the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). To make matters easy for him—and if the hon. Lady does not press her amendment—the official Opposition will attempt to reintroduce it in the other place, to give the Government time to think about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 220, in page 57, line 18, at end insert
and
(b) a sub judice rule.'.

No. 221, in page 57, in line 20, at end insert
and for withdrawing his rights and privileges as a member for the period of his exclusion'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

7 pm

Mrs. Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 57, line 40, at end insert—
'(4) The standing orders shall include provision to allow members of the European Parliament to sit on any committee or sub—committee charged with the scrutiny of European Commission documents or European legislation.'.

The amendment is simple. I tell hon. Members who are interested in the European issue that there will be opportunities later in the Bill's passage to examine the complexities of the relationship between European institutions and the proposed Scottish Parliament, and that perhaps they should not try to fire all their ammunition now.
In moving the amendment, I am trying to discover what Ministers believe should be the link between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. I am not saying in the amendment that MEPs should sit on Committees and have automatic voting rights, merely that they should be enabled to be in the Scottish Parliament and to assist any Committee that will be established to scrutinise European legislation. If the principle of involvement were conceded, I am sure that the Scottish Parliament could itself examine how such Committees might evolve.
I have studied other Parliaments and how their Members link in with Members of the European Parliament. I am specifically dealing with scrutiny committees—not policy committees—examining proposals from the Commission.
In Belgium, for example, the scrutiny committee consists of 10 MEPs and 10 MPs. In Denmark, MEPs can attend the scrutiny committee if they have a dual mandate. In Germany, in the Bundestag, 50 MPs are involved in scrutiny, 39 of whom are directly elected to the Bundestag and 11 of whom are MEPs. There is provision in the Bundesrat, composed of members from the various Lander, to allow MEPs to sit on scrutiny committees. In Greece, 31 members scrutinise European legislation, including 10 MEPs. Spain has provided for joint meetings.
In France, MEPs are invited to give evidence on technical measures. In Ireland and Italy, there is provision for MEPs attend such meetings. In Luxembourg, MEPs attend in an advisory capacity. There are regular meetings with MEPs in the Netherlands. Austria has no formal arrangements. Finland's MEPs are heard as experts. Portugal provides for regular meetings. In the United Kingdom, there are no formal arrangements and no direct links.
I accept that scrutiny committees work in different ways in different countries. As we establish the Scottish Parliament, we should consider how important Europe is to the electorate of Scotland, because many issues are now dealt with in European legislation.
With other hon. Members, I serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation. In one year, our Committee scrutinised 1,356 documents. Of those, 50 were recommended for debate—12 on the Floor of the House, and 38 in Standing Committees. That substantial amount of legislation—the gamut of European legislation—has an impact on the Scottish economy, on Scottish society and on the Scottish environment.
I should like us to consider the possibility of the Scottish Parliament immediately opening its doors to the expertise and knowledge of those who work within the European Parliament, enabling us to examine the impact of European proposals on our country of Scotland. That would be logical.
For a long time, MEPs have not had freedom of access or easy access in the House to telephones, for example, or to fax machines or to Brussels. It was a long and


hard-fought campaign. Hon. Members are now eligible for one trip per year on Commission business to either Brussels or Strasbourg. There is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to say, "Let's examine how other Parliaments in the European Union operate, and consider some of their ideas."
The amendment will not tie us into granting any rigorous rights or means of domination. It will merely open doors to ensure that those who are elected—only a month after the Scottish Parliament elections—by our electorate in Scotland are given the right to come to our Parliament and to be involved in discussions affecting us. That is the amendment's underpinning ethos.
The European Parliament is the most democratic of all European institutions. MEPs are not appointed or delegated—they are elected by the people. In a newly elected Scottish Parliament, we should involve those who are directly elected. The expertise that MEPs could bring to our scrutiny would be to the benefit of us all.

Mr. Dalyell: Having been a member of the Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of that clever man Julius Silverman, I find myself extremely sympathetic to the aims of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Incidentally, gently and without malice, I think that she may have scored a little bit of parliamentary history or a parliamentary first. I doubt whether—in the whole history of this Parliament's 700 years or whatever it is—anyone has ever before proposed a "co-opt my mother-in-law" amendment. I do not know whether we should call it the "co-opt Winnie Ewing" amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): My hon. Friend is supposed to be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to do it any harm, because I certainly do support it, having been a Member of the indirectly elected Parliament and also a member of the Scrutiny Committee. My only trouble is that, if we co-opt Members of the European Parliament, where will it end? Should Members of the European Parliament be co-opted to the Council, or vice versa? However, using Members of the European Parliament for European legislation is a special case. Speaking for myself, I should like to think that, if there is to be an assembly at Holyrood, David Martin, the distinguished MEP for Lothians, will be able to play a part in it. I support the amendment.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I share the hon. Lady's warmth of feeling about the potential that Members of the European Parliament can offer the process of scrutiny. I, too, have sat on Scrutiny Committees. We are told that we have one of the best systems of pre-scrutiny of draft European legislation. To use a phrase in a foreign language, "Cela laisse un peu à désirer."
There is scant evidence that our deliberations have much influence on the process of drafting and negotiating European legislation. However, such proposals must be welcome if they create a community of ideas between different levels of government within the European Community.
We do not support the amendment, however, as we believe that it should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Just as we decide whether to bring Members of the European Parliament into our proceedings, that should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, and not something that we should impose on it.

Mrs. McKenna: I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, but her proposal is too prescriptive. The Standing Orders provide a framework within which the Scottish Parliament can operate, but many issues have been unexplored or misunderstood, as the Scottish Parliament will be in a much stronger position within the European Union than the Scottish National party has suggested.
For example, the Scottish Parliament will be able to appoint a Member to the Committee of the Regions. The Committee of the Regions comprises members of any parliamentary or Government organisation below the level of national Government. Clearly, the Scottish Parliament will fall into that category. As a result, when the Scottish Parliament is involved in pre-legislative consultation, it will be in a strong position. It will be able to make representations and to scrutinise European legislation as it is being prepared.
The amendment is far too prescriptive, as it leaves a host of possibilities in the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Europe unexplored. The Parliament should have wider powers than the amendment would provide. I hope that it will be a listening and involved Parliament, that it will operate quite differently from this place, and that its Members will be invited to attend Committees and participate in decision making. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, because it should be a decision for the Scottish Parliament—once all the avenues have been explored, it should decide how it will operate.

Mr. Gorrie: We support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). My hon. Friends and I have been airing other possibilities whereby the Scottish Parliament could experiment with Committees with full Members who were not Members of the Scottish Parliament. Instead of MSPs talking to deputations, people outside the Scottish Parliament who knew about or worked in a particular field—whether it was health, education or transport—as deliverers or users of services could join MSPs on Scrutiny Committees. The amendment is an extension of that.
We hope that the Scottish Parliament will experiment with much more flexible Committees than those in the House. Whether that is achieved through its Standing Orders or by accepting the hon. Lady's amendment, I believe that it would be a move in the right direction.

Mr. McLeish: Once again, we are sympathetic to the spirit and the concept of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We want to make the Scottish Parliament different, and everyone in Scotland has accepted that it should have different machinery and procedures. There has been particular emphasis on pre-legislation discussions before Bills are published, and great play has been made of the fact that European legislation should have much greater scrutiny than it does in the House.
The hon. Lady referred to Europe. We are learning from Europe as we develop policies for the Scottish Parliament. That is part of the work of the consultative steering group, and it is important that we accept that the spirit of doing things differently and learning from Europe is fundamental to what we want to achieve.
7.15 pm
There may be occasions when contributions by MEPs might help in the consideration of EU proposals. However, how best to achieve that is a matter that should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide.
Hon. Members must appreciate that the Scottish Parliament's Committees and sub-Committees will be composed of MSPs. It is obviously right and proper that only elected Members should have the right to vote when Committees take decisions. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is not suggesting anything to the contrary. Special provision is made in the Bill for the case where the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General are not Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, that does not prevent the Parliament from deciding whether and how to make provision in its Standing Orders on arrangements for inviting non-Members of the Parliament to attend Committees and participate in their deliberations, so that the benefit of their knowledge and experience is available to the Parliament. Again, I anticipate broad agreement that that is a sensible and constructive proposal.
I suggest that the matter might be taken up by the all-party consultative steering group, which has been established to look at the detailed Standing Orders for the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Lady smiles, but that is a genuine expression of sympathy for the points that have been raised. We have the opportunity within the consultative steering group and subsequently within the Standing Orders of the new Parliament to establish a proper precedent and procedure.
In view of that, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady withdrew her amendment, so that we can discuss how best the matter can be taken forward in the forum that we have to examine the pre-Standing Order position, and in the Parliament itself when it is established.

Mrs. Ewing: I have listened with interest to the comments in this short debate, and I shall not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems to be personalising almost every amendment. Last night we had the "Sean Connery enabling amendment" and tonight it has been the "co-opt my mother-in-law" amendment. I was not proposing co-opting my mother-in-law, although she would be most effective in any Committee dealing with European legislation. However, it was important to explore the proposal in the context of the Scottish Parliament.
The exchanges that I have had with the Secretary of State about derogations and who takes the ultimate decision, and the long letters that were sometimes very difficult to comprehend, suggest there is a need for co-ordination between elected MEPs and MSPs

Mr. Dewar: Just to clarify a matter of some interest and importance, is it not true that the hon. Lady's mother-in-law has announced that she will not be a Member of the European Parliament after the next election?

Mrs. Ewing: The Secretary of State is not following matters carefully, because consultation is currently under

way in my mother-in-law's constituency. I know that the Secretary of State has addressed the issue through the Highlands and Islands Convention. Because of the changes in the elections to the European Parliament in Scotland, whereby eight MEPs will represent Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Convention is having to address proper representation and co-operation. In the context of the Scottish Parliament, there could be an extension of that argument, on which he and I agree.

Dr. Fox: As a matter of interest, is the logic of the hon. Lady's case that there would be circumstances in which she would envisage benefit being achieved from co-opting Scottish Members here to Committees of the Scottish Parliament, for the same reasons that she has given in respect of European legislation?

Mrs. Ewing: That does not apply to the schedule. You would rule me out of order, Sir Alan, if I carried on. There is a case for the Scottish Parliament to consider new ways of dealing with the information that comes to it and bringing in expertise. None of us wants to be narrow on that. That was the attitude behind the amendment.
Although I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, the Minister of State is beginning to give the steering committee a lot of hard work. I gave a very short precis of how other Parliaments work with their MEPs. The steering committee may be in danger of taking issues away from the House and not bringing them back at an effective stage. Perhaps he could ensure that that is given serious consideration on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 10, line 33, after 'person', insert
, organisation or trade union'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 160, in page 10, line 38, after 'person', insert
, organisation or trade union'.
Government amendment No. 222.

Dr. Fox: We want to get through a great deal of material this evening. I hope that the Committee will understand that the length of time that I take on the amendment does not detract from the seriousness with which we regard the issue.
The White Paper says that the Parliament must be open, responsive and accountable. It confirms that Standing Orders will cover Members' pecuniary interests. The Bill says that the Standing Orders must prohibit Members from advocating a matter
on behalf of any person by any means specified
or from urging any other Members to do so in return for payment or benefit.
I shall not detain the Committee by going over recent history, the traumas that Parliament has been through, and the measures that we put in place to deal with such matters, or mentioning any of the on-going sagas involving hon. Members on both sides. That is irrelevant. However, it is important that the Scottish Parliament should have an opportunity for clarity and transparency with the new measures to be put in place.
Given the current and past political culture in Scotland, the Minister should consider our amendment, which would add "organisation or trade union" after "person". We know about the close relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party, which remains the largest party in Scotland. The relationship is stronger in Midlothian and Sedgefield than in Islington, where the Labour party probably attracts the appropriate residents. Without the amendment, the Government may be open to the charge of having one rule for their friends and other rules for the rest.

Mr. Canavan: Does the definition of "organisation" include limited companies and lobbying organisations, from which many Tory Members of Parliament have accepted huge amounts of money to further their cause?

Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman belittles the debate. I do not want to get involved in the petty accusations that tend to bedevil such debates. I hope that it will be made clear from the outset that the definition includes companies and lobbying organisations. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that they will come up with their own.
The House has always had a tradition that declarations of interest are not made during oral questions because of the time that that would take. Why do the Government think that there should be different arrangements for the Scottish Parliament?
I also wonder whether the Bill should include a provision to prevent or restrict participation in the proceedings of the Parliament by a Member with a registerable interest. Surely the important fact is that the Member should register and declare the interest. That should guarantee that the Parliament knows whose case he may be advocating. If that is transparent, I do not know why there is any need for a power to prevent or restrict.

Mr. Salmond: Let us say that a Member of this House declared that he was paid by Westminster Communications—a lobbying company with hundreds of clients. How would the House know for which, if any, of those hundreds of clients the Member was making a case?

Dr. Fox: The best way would be by asking questions openly in a democratic debate. I do not understand the benefit of preventing or restricting the participation of a Member. Declaring and registering an interest should be enough. There is a chance to avoid some of the pitfalls that we have had here in recent years. The Minister should take the opportunity to make matters clearer and more transparent from the outset. If he cannot accept our

amendments, he should give a commitment to consider similar amendments to ensure that there is not one rule for one and another rule for others.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that this is the right time to make these points. The Law Society of Scotland is of the view that important matters such as the Register of Members' Interests, being in primary legislation, should be subject to adequate parliamentary scrutiny, and should not be formulated in Standing Orders, which could be subject to simple amendment procedures. It is also concerned that the clause creates the framework for an offence provision but delegates the scope of that offence to the Scottish Parliament in its Standing Orders. Is it appropriate that the Standing Orders should contain provisions creating offences as provided for in subsection (6)?

Sir Robert Smith: We support the amendment, because the public's concern about paid advocacy extends beyond the individual to organisations of any description. We hope that the definition extends to private limited companies. People should not be advocating causes on behalf of a financial interest. They should represent the people whom they were elected to serve.
Will the Minister tell us the legal definition of "person"? It would also be helpful if the Conservatives could give us a definition of "organisation". There is some debate about the legal definition of "person". The book provided by the Scottish Office does not extend the definition, leaving the impression that a "person" is an individual. The public would like it extended to cover organisations and other bodies.

Mr. Salmond: For consistency, the Conservatives must withdraw the amendment. They have argued on other amendments for matters to be left to the Parliament. The issue can and should be dealt with in the Standing Orders of the Parliament. We had a brief preliminary discussion at the consultative committee, when the subject was raised obliquely. I am not sure whether anyone has the full answer, but we all recognise that the public believe that there is a huge problem in this place. That problem remains; it has by no means been settled or solved.
We should have a few guiding principles. Members of the Scottish Parliament should be full-time, not part-time. There is a case for someone with a family business still needing to be present in that business, but that is different from someone having 20, 25 or 30 directorships littered around. Even if those directorships are declared, the Member is still cheating his or her constituency and the public.
We had a debate about standards when some hon. Members were embroiled in what became known as the "cash for questions" scandal. One member of the Committee inquiring into that made a speech. It was regarded as acceptable—I checked the Register of Members' Interests—that he had almost 30 directorships.
There is a fairly narrow dividing line between cash for questions and that scandal, and somebody—albeit openly—declaring almost 30 directorships. The new Parliament will have to agree not only that everything should be declared, but a little more. People who have the privilege of serving a constituency should be expected to work full time and devote their time and energy to that job, not serve other interests.
I sympathise with those who represent voluntary organisations. Indeed, one of my colleagues represents one of the nurses' unions, for very little payment. There may be a case—I have mentioned two of them—for specifying such interests, to ensure that access to Members of Parliament for those who are in difficult circumstances and who are often dispossessed in society is declared. We cannot and must not have a range of allowances whereby people can cheerfully accept salary cheques from 30 or 40 different sources as well as picking up the pay of a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
I have two points for the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). First, given his previous arguments, should we not leave this matter to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament? Secondly, I shall reverse an argument that I have been making. At times during the passage of the Bill, I have tried to protect the Scottish Conservative party from the English Conservative party. Given the contribution of the Scottish Conservative party representative on the consultative committee, I am not certain whether the Scottish Conservative party is fully on board with the spirit of non-advocacy and total declaration that has been presented from the Tory Front Bench. Perhaps the communication lines are not operating between Scotland and Westminster. I suggest that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen inform their Scottish colleagues of the far more rigorous attitude being adopted—at last—by the Conservative party in Westminster.

Mr. George Galloway: I sense that Committee members do not want to be detained for long on this matter. I had not intended to speak, but I am tempted to do so by a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the hon. Member said that this Parliament has "a huge problem" of Members accepting cash for questions. I do not think that that is true. The problem of public perception of Parliament is bad enough, without that comment being allowed to pass unchallenged on to the record.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I mentioned cash for questions and said that Parliament had a huge problem in its public perception and standing as a result of the many incidents over the past few years, which have certainly created public disquiet and damaged the reputation of this place. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, does not recognise exactly what I am talking about.

Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised, because, a couple of years ago, I was falsely accused on such matters, and entirely cleared by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am extremely sensitive to such false or reckless allegations or imputations that we have a huge problem. I do not believe that we have a huge problem. In so far as we have a problem at all, it is certainly made worse by people carelessly, recklessly, tossing around such talk. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but it is no laughing matter.
More importantly, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, rather contradictorily, raised the issue of Members' outside interests. He said that it is all right if a

Member has a family business or a family farm, but it is not all right if a Member has directorships. He did not deal with the issue of newspaper columnists, for example. I declare an interest as a newspaper columnist—as is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkin: Is he paid for it?

Mr. Galloway: I am certain that he is paid—but not as well as I.
Will Members of the Scottish Parliament be allowed to write columns for The Herald in Glasgow and remain MSPs? It is preposterous to say that they could not. Where do we draw the line—at newspaper columnists, farmers, participants in a family business? This fraught area deserves more careful consideration.

Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the line might be drawn by the electorate? Candidates should make it clear whether they intend to engage in any other activities, and voters will decide whether it should be dealt with

Mr. Galloway: The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipated exactly what I was going to say. Who sits in the Scottish Parliament ought to be a matter for the electors. Electors are fully aware when a candidate goes before them of the profession, business interests and jobs in which the candidate will continue to be involved. If the electorate were not aware, it would be the job of the opposition parties to draw it to their attention. It is easy to take a cheap, populist line in this area, but if it is not thought through, very many people will be precluded from standing for the Parliament.
There is an argument with which we are all familiar. I heard it from a Conservative Member, who very persuasively made the point that, as a dentist, he had to keep his hand in. It was rather an apt pun, but it is absolutely accurate. I do not know whether he is still an hon. Member.

Dr. Fox: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as a former obstetrician, I would not like to go down that line.

Mr. Galloway: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that line. [Laughter.] When one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. [Laughter.] The hon. Member in question may have lost his seat in the interim.

Mr. Ancram: He is still with us

Mr. Galloway: He is still with us.
The hon. Member in question made the point that politicians are here today and gone tomorrow, so it is good to have a trade on which to fall back. As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman last night, I am a jobbing politician. None the less, I think it important that people keep their hand in, in some trades, because, if they do not, they will lose the ability to practise them if they ever have to return to them.
Hon. Members may laugh, and it has been an amusing little exchange, but the point is valid. In some jobs and professions, people are required to continue work. There might even be some benefit in people having some limited outside interests which they can bring to bear in Parliament—as long as nothing is hidden from the elector


and as long as the elector is not, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, in any way cheated. I cannot see how electors would be cheated if total transparency were observed.

Mr. McLeish: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) that we need balance. We are talking about a very important matter. It is set in the context of Westminster, but it concerns a huge public interest issue. We are trying to achieve a balance in laying down important requirements for the Parliament to pursue, and at the same time leaving it to develop in its Standing Orders the very details that will govern Members' interests. That is the right balance to strike.
We do not depart at all from openness and transparency. We want a Parliament that works normally and effectively, but one in which MSPs by their actions can illustrate a new way of working which reflects the new politics about which we have often talked. Of course, we will not have a chance to implement the new politics until Members are elected on 6 May 1999, powers begin to be transferred from Westminster and we become actively involved. Nobody should infer from the debate anything other than the seriousness with which the Government view the matter.
I shall make a few comments about the background to clause 22 before responding to the Opposition amendments and talking about our amendment, No. 222. The Government are committed to ensuring that the highest possible standards apply to elected members at whatever level. In the case of the Scottish Parliament, the provisions in clause 22 are intended to ensure that certain essential elements of the regulation of Members' interests are set in place. That is essential so that the Scottish electorate can have confidence that its representatives are not being unduly swayed by external influences.
The provision will therefore ensure that the Parliament provides for a register of Members' interests, which will be published and available for public inspection. Any Member who has a financial interest in a matter, or another interest of a type specified in the Standing Orders, must declare that interest before taking part in the proceedings of the Parliament. The Standing Orders must also prohibit Members from advocating any matter on behalf of a person in return for payment or benefit in kind.
The clause goes on to create a criminal offence—

Mr. Dalyell: Are the Standing Orders to be subject to simple amendment procedures?

Mr. McLeish: As I said earlier, we are laying down important requirements in statute on the face of the Bill. It will then be up to the Parliament itself to look at its Standing Orders and develop further the position on Members' interests. That is a wholly reasonable position for us to adopt at this stage, as I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate.

Dr. Fox: Will the Minister tell us the definition of the word "person" as used on the face of the Bill?

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that specifically when I deal with the amendments.
Clause 22 goes on to create a criminal offence where a Member is found to be guilty of contravening those Standing Orders.
The Bill establishes a framework that will be fleshed out in the Parliament's Standing Orders. That is an area that the Government—and, I am sure, the Parliament in due course—will want to keep under continuous review. It will wish to apply the best practice available, which will include taking account of the work in that area by the Nolan committee and the continuing activities of the Neill committee and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
The argument for Government amendment No. 222 is similar to that for amendment No. 221, which has just been accepted by the House. It reinforces the powers available to the Parliament to deal with Members excluded under subsection (5).
Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 seek to insert a reference to "organisation or trade union" into the relevant parts of subsection (4). That is the part of the clause that would prohibit a Member of the Parliament from advocating or initiating, either himself or by urging another Member to do so, any matter in return for payment or benefit in kind.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that his amendments are unnecessary. Clause 22(4) mentions only "any person", but I am advised that, in accordance with the normal rules for interpreting statutes, "person" includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate. The provision would therefore cover paid advocacy on behalf of any organisation or trade union, so it is not necessary to add the suggested words to the Bill. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and also to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) for giving a balanced view of how registered interests ought to work in the Parliament. He is right to say that what we really require is transparency. I understand why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has his own interest in trying to blacken the name of this Parliament, but I do not think that there is a huge problem here, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 222, in page 10, line 41, at end insert
and for withdrawing his rights and privileges as a member for the period of his exclusion'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill

Mr. Dalyell: My question may be more appropriate to this debate than to the previous one. It is: is it appropriate that Standing Orders should contain provisions creating offences as provided for in subsection (6)? I remind the Committee that that subsection reads as follows:
Any Member of the Parliament who—
(a) takes part in any proceedings of the Parliament without having complied with, or in contravention of, any provision made in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3), or
(b) contravenes any provision made in pursuance of subsection (4),
is guilty of an offence.


I am advised by the Law Society that that is a matter of some substance.
Secondly, should the offence provisions apply to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General, given that they will not be taking part in proceedings, or in advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person in the Parliament? The ministerial advisers will know that that question, too, came from the Law Society.
Thirdly, will there be any corresponding requirement for the Advocate General for Scotland to be registered in the register of interests at Westminster?
One could ask the question—although it may be more appropriate on clause 82—what happens if there are two strong-willed lawyers in the position of Lord Advocate and Advocate General? Obviously, that could be a difficult relationship

Mr. McLeish: In the context of the points made earlier about balance, yes, we are happy about the provisions in subsection (6) that place that requirement on the Parliament. It is in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3), and the point is appropriate.
It is right to remember that we must lay down those important requirements for the Parliament. I think that the Committee would regard that subsection as vital for the overall conduct of the Standing Orders. It will, of course, be for the Parliament itself to develop further details within the Standing Orders covering a wide variety of Members' activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to subsection (8). Again, we believe it highly appropriate that such measures should apply. The holders of the posts specified need not be external to the membership of the Parliament. As for the Advocate General's being on the Register in this House, I shall write to my hon. Friend on the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

POWER TO CALL FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 11, line 8, after 'Parliament', insert 'by a two-thirds majority'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 223 and 224.

Amendment No. 43, in page 11, leave out lines 16 to 21.

Amendment No. 102, in page 11, leave out line 17.

Amendment No. 161, in page 11, leave out line 18.

Amendment No. 162, in page 11, line 21, at end insert—
(3A) The power in subsection (1) is not exercisable in relation to a Minister of the Crown'.

Amendment No. 103, in page 11, leave out lines 23 and 24.

Government amendment No. 225.

Amendment No. 164, in page 11, line 25, leave out
which exercises the judicial power of the State'.

Amendment No. 165, in page 11, line 29, after "otherwiser)", insert
and if two thirds of more of its membership so resolve'.

Amendment No. 166, in page 12, line 3, after "Scotland', add
or in a court exercising jurisdiction in those parts of the United Kingdom in which the person resides or works'.

Government amendment No. 226.

Amendment No. 167, in clause 24, clause 24, page 12, line 8, after 'refuses', insert
or fails without reasonable excuse,'.

Amendment No. 249, in clause 24, page 12, line 8, after "refuses' insert
'or fails without reasonable cause.'.

Government amendment No. 227.

Amendment No. 168, in clause 25, clause 25, page 12, line 29, after 'oath', insert 'or affirmation'.

Government amendment No. 228.

Amendment No. 104, in clause 83, clause 83, page 38, line 21, at end insert—
(3A) The Parliament shall be entitled to require any representative of a cross-border public body—

(a) to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence, or
(b) to produce documents in his custody or under his control, in respect of matters within the responsibility of that body which relate to or affect Scotland.'.

New clause 2—Power to request witnesses and documents—

'(1) The Parliament may request any person—

(a) to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence, or
(b) to produce documents in his custody or under his control, relating to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) The matters to which subsection (1)(b) applies are reserved matters in so far as they affect Scotland.

(3) In the event of a person to whom this section applies declining to give evidence or produce documents, he shall inform the Clerk in writing of the reasons for his refusal.

(4) The power contained in subsection (1) may be exercised by a committee or sub-committee of the Parliament only if the committee or sub-committee is expressly authorised to do so (whether by standing orders or otherwise).

(5) The Clerk shall give the person in question notice in writing specifying—

(a) the time and place at which the person is invited to attend and the particular matters relating to which he is requested to give evidence, or
(b) the documents, or types of documents, which he is to produce, the date by which he is requested to produce them and the particular matters to which they relate.

(6) Such notice shall be given—

(a) in the case of an individual, by sending it, by registered post or the recorded delivery service, addressed to him at his usual or last known address or, where he has given an address for service, at that address, or
(b) in any other case, by sending it, by registered post or the recorded delivery service, addressed to the person at the person's registered or principal office.

(7) A person is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce in proceedings in a court in Scotland.'.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall endeavour to explain to the Committee what the amendments are about, for the benefit of those who do not understand—a category which, until a little while ago, included me.
We are referring the power to summon witnesses and documents. This Parliament's power to summon witnesses and documents is absolute; it is one of our absolute prerogatives. It is not recorded in any statute, but is something that we inherited, so to speak, from the Crown. It is referred to only in "Erskine May", which has no statutory authority but is one of the sources of our constitution.
The power is extremely draconian, and it is one that we rarely use. If the Scottish Parliament is to have analogous powers, they will have to be granted by this Parliament by statute. That is what the clause is principally about.
It is proposed that the Scottish Parliament's powers will be prescribed, rather than unlimited like the powers of this Parliament. The debate will be about what prescriptions and limits for those powers exist, and how they are likely to be applied.
The amendments reflect two main concerns: first, that the extremely draconian power should be exercised carefully, not lightly or wantonly; and secondly, that the power should not extend to summoning people and documents that are not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment No. 163 would limit the use of the power to circumstances in which a two thirds majority of the Parliament votes to exercise it, and Amendment No. 165 would apply that principle to Committees. The exercise of the power could be left entirely to the Scottish Parliament's discretion, but it is rarely used at Westminster, mainly because, when people are invited to attend Parliament or a Committee, they regard it as a privilege and an opportunity to present their views. Even the most reluctant witnesses are encouraged to attend voluntarily by a Clerk merely saying that we have the power. Nevertheless, the power is available for use.
Making the power explicit in the Bill makes it seem a more everyday power than it should be. Our contention is simply that the draconian power should be used only when there is consensus in the Scottish Parliament. In this Parliament, it would be unlikely for even the majority party to require the attendance of a witness or require documents to be produced against the wishes of, for example, the main Opposition party. We want to reflect in the Bill, for the Scottish Parliament, that natural tendency to consensus.
Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 164 are concerned with who should be subject to the power. Matters are not made any simpler for us by Government amendment No. 224. It appears that the Government want to trim the Parliament's right to summon Ministers of the Crown from the original intention as expressed in the Bill, because under the amendment Ministers would not be subject to compulsion on questions relating to functions exercisable under joint responsibility, but would still be subject to it on devolved matters in which they have a direct involvement.
I look forward to a full explanation of the reasons behind amendment No. 224 and of the distinctions intended in the wording. My fear is that the natural lines of accountability will still be blurred. The principle should surely be that United Kingdom Ministers are responsible and answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament, and that Scottish Ministers should be responsible to the Scottish Parliament.
Where their responsibilities overlap, we should not expect Scottish Ministers to be responsible to this Parliament or United Kingdom Ministers to be responsible to the Scottish Parliament. They must explain their functions and their relationships with each other to their own respective Parliaments.
Obviously, as we are a sovereign Parliament, we would have the power to summon Scottish Ministers to appear here; but I would suggest that we would want to use it extremely sparingly. Our intention in amendments Nos. 161 and 162 is to create clear lines of accountability, so that United Kingdom Ministers are not automatically expected to be answerable to the Scottish Parliament for what they do in the United Kingdom Government, although of course one would expect them to make themselves available as a resource for informing debate in the Scottish Parliament and to give evidence and information there when asked to do so. I should be interested in the Government's view of that principle.
Amendment No. 164 is designed to widen the exclusion of those acting in a judicial capacity. I am interested to see that—perhaps in the spirit of the new politics, which is finally beginning to touch the Conservative party—the Liberal Democrats are supporting our amendment.
It is obvious that judges should not be called to account to a legislature for their decisions, but the same surely applies to those who act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, even if it is not a state capacity: for example, the heads of self-regulatory organisations; ombudsmen of private industries; arbitrators, who might be dealing with contracts or insurance matters; and—this may be a matter dear to the hearts of Liberal Democrats—the Church courts, which are non-state courts but have a judicial capacity none the less.
Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 are intended as clarifications and suggested improvements. The former would tighten the requirement for people to attend if summoned, and the latter would allow for an affirmation as an alternative to an oath.
The Government, I fear, have the luxury of a middle course, because the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party suggest that anyone in the United Kingdom should be subject to the power. That reminds us that we are dealing with United Kingdom legislation that has the force of law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland. The nationalists would like to make any person in the United Kingdom who is concerned with the functions set out under subsection (2) subject to summons by the Scottish Parliament. One might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
Judging by amendment No. 43, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) shares our view that Ministers of the Crown, who are answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament, should be immune from compulsion to attend the Scottish Parliament. If he does not, I should be interested to hear what he says.

Mr. Canavan: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Yet again, we have heard


a clear implication from the Tory Front Bench that the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted with the powers proposed for it both in the White Paper and in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman admitted that Westminster has unlimited and untrammelled powers to summon any person or to call for any papers. The powers are not limited at all in statute, and apparently derive in some mystical way from the Crown; but the Scottish Parliament's powers to summon people and call for papers are clearly defined in the Bill. Yet the Tories somehow cannot stomach that, and say that a majority of two thirds of the Parliament is needed before the powers are used.

Mr. Jenkin: The distinction is that, whereas this Parliament has absolute power, we are delegating powers to the Scottish Parliament. It is incumbent on us to make it clear in the Bill how we expect those powers to be used. We heard from the Secretary of State yesterday about supremacy, and he made it clear that this Parliament remains sovereign. Therefore, although we are delegating powers for which the Scottish Parliament will be responsible, we remain indirectly responsible for the way in which they are exercised. In that respect, it is not an insult to the Scottish Parliament to suggest that this Parliament remains sovereign and ultimately responsible for exercising the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is a practical fact that, if the Scottish Parliament were to misuse its powers, the democratically elected representatives of the Scottish people might well come here to ask us to address the situation.

8 pm

Mr. Canavan: It is not a true delegation of powers to give a body certain powers while making so many conditions and ifs and buts that the body itself wonders whether it can use them. What lies at the heart of the matter is the Tories' love of and trust in this place and their distrust of the proposed Scottish Parliament. They imply that Members of the Scottish Parliament will not be responsible enough to use those powers in a reasonable manner. To describe the powers as "draconian" frankly shows either a misunderstanding or a misuse of the English language.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is directing his argument towards me, but the Secretary of State drafted the clause; we are merely proposing one or two amendments to it. It is the Secretary of State who has all sorts of limits as to how the powers should be used. The hon. Gentleman should have his argument with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the Opposition are arguing this point from the same perspective, but the hon. Gentleman is, frankly, arguing from a nationalist perspective—he is saying that the Scottish Parliament should exercise absolute discretion.

Mr. Canavan: The Secretary of State can speak for himself, as can the Minister, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would state that the Bill proposes a reasonable limitation. The Opposition are proposing to shackle the Scottish Parliament absolutely—not just on this matter but on many others.
I wish to refer to amendment No. 43, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Clause 23(3) proposes to give a

form of exemption or immunity to certain people so that they cannot be summoned to appear before the Scottish Parliament or any of its Committees. I am not too happy about that, as it could lead to a situation in which the efforts of the Scottish Parliament and its Committees to uncover the truth or to pursue justice in certain cases could be thwarted.
The Scottish Parliament could decide to set up a Committee of Inquiry into someone who had allegedly perpetrated a great injustice against the people of Scotland. The Committee might decide to summon the person or people allegedly responsible. However, those people might simply cross the border to England, or go to Wales. From my reading of clause 23(3), I understand that the Scottish Parliament could do nothing about that, unless the person or people were covered by the condition referred to at the end of clause 23(3).
The Scottish Parliament should, in certain circumstances, have powers to call Ministers of the Crown. My hon. Friend the Minister is, unquestionably, a Minister of the Crown. Could he define what is meant in the Bill by a "Minister of the Crown"? The Bill proposes that Ministers in the Scottish Administration should also have Crown approval. Does that make them Ministers of the Crown also? If so, it is absurd that Ministers of the Crown—especially Ministers in the Scots Administration—should be exempt from being summoned before the Scottish Parliament or its Committees.
The Bill proposes that UK Ministers will continue to have certain powers relating to Scotland on certain reserved matters, but also—this is important—on matters for which there is some joint or shared responsibility. I am not absolutely certain that the wording of my amendment is correct, but I would like to try to clarify that grey area of shared responsibility between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, and between the UK Government and the Scottish Administration.
The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Administration will be responsible for industrial development and inward investment. However, the Department of Trade and Industry will retain some responsibility for these matters within a general framework covering the whole of the United Kingdom. There may be legitimate circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament could be able to summon a Minister and/or civil servants from the DTI to clarify matters on a subject under inquiry by the Scottish Parliament or one of its Committees.

Mr. John Swinney: After the Bill's enactment, a number of concordats will be created to regulate areas where the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will have some interest. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be a legitimate area in which the Scottish Parliament would have an interest in examining—in a wider sphere than simply the activities of the Scottish Parliament—the way in which other parties were influencing areas of policy, which might involve asking UK Ministers to appear before the Committees of the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Canavan: That is precisely the point I am trying to make. The grey areas are not all that well defined, but there are areas where there will be joint responsibility. In the circumstances, the Scottish Parliament should have the power and the opportunity to summon UK Ministers, as well as Ministers from the Scottish Administration.
The Select Committees in this place will retain their right to summon virtually anyone. They can summon a Scottish Office Minister, the Scottish First Minister, civil servants from the Scottish Administration, people from north of the border and people from other parts of the UK. I fail to see why there should not be some degree of that ability in the Scottish Parliament.
I am not asking for complete reciprocation, because we are not talking about a completely independent state and a Parliament serving it. However, there are areas of joint responsibility, and I am not sure whether clause 23(3) covers all such circumstances. It states that the power is not exercisable in relation to a person
unless he discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2)",
which refers to "devolved matters" and
matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers.
Does the phrase
unless he discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2)
cover the categories in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3), or does it cover only the category in paragraph (c), a person in Crown employment? Could a person outside Scotland or a Minister of the Crown who is a UK Minister who discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2) be summoned by the Scottish Parliament or one of its Committees?
I note that the present tense is used in line 21 of clause 23:
unless he discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2).
What about someone who used to discharge a function, such as a former UK Minister or a former civil servant? We have had cases in this Parliament that have involved more than summoning members or civil servants of the existing Administration.
When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry into the Belgrano, Francis Pym came. We did not have to summon him, but, if he had refused to come, we could have. Geoffrey Howe is another former Secretary of State who has been summoned. In the inquiry into the Pergau dam, George Younger came to give evidence as a former Secretary of State. I am not sure that line 21 of clause 23 would be enough to cover such circumstances, because it uses the present tense. It should say:
unless he discharges or used to discharge functions relating to matters within subsection (2).
That is why I have tabled the amendment.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister replied on those points because it is very important that the Scottish Parliament and its Committees have adequate powers to summon people and call for papers to uncover the truth and give helpful reports to the Scottish Parliament and to the people of Scotland. That should include, in certain circumstances, calling people from south of the border, including UK Ministers and civil servants.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I have listened with interest to the debate. I am sorry that we have had yet another example of what I can only describe as an emergent Anglo-Saxon supremacist lobby that seems to see everything in terms of asserting its supremacy over us poor folk north of the border who clearly will not be capable of dealing with such nasty, complicated issues.
It is evident from the number of amendments tabled to clause 23 that there is concern about several aspects. If the Conservative Front-Bench team had examined it more carefully they might have seen why. It appears to be a retreat from what was contained in the White Paper. That gave rise to several of the amendments and to new clause 2.
The issue of clause 23 arose on Second Reading when we discussed the reservation of broadcasting. My attention was directed to it by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is a colleague of my mine in another capacity in the Faculty of Advocates. I am sorry that he is not in his seat; he was here briefly earlier. Later in that debate, he graciously accepted that he was wrong in some of his comments, but he wanted to point out that I was equally wrong. I freely admit that, so focused was I on broadcasting, that I was partially wrong, although only in so far as I had not appreciated the extent to which the legislation differed from the White Paper on cross-border public bodies. I am grateful to him, although he may wish that he had kept quiet.
I want to discuss amendments Nos. 102 to 104, which deal with the power of the Parliament, especially in relation to cross-border public bodies, which I suspect may become a vexed question when the Parliament is in operation. Amendment No. 103 aims to open up a discussion on the precise meaning of clause 23(4)(a) in the context of the whole clause. We recognise that Government amendments Nos. 224 and 226 turn previous negatives into positives, but I am not sure that, in reality, they change much. The Government's attention may also have been drawn to clause 23 by the Second Reading debate.
8.15 pm
Government amendment No. 225 is tortuous in the extreme; it not only sheds no new light but further obscures matters. Clause 23(4)(a) states that the power in subsection (1) is not exercisable in relation to
a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate only to reserved matters".
What is that meant to do in the context of subsection (2)? Amendment No. 225 would make it read:
That power is not exercisable in relation to a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate only to reserved matters in connection with the discharge by him of those functions.
That further obscures the matter.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what he thinks his amendments are intended to do, so that we know where the Government want to go before we decide to what parts we might object? I find the amendments hard to follow.

Ms Cunningham: I expect that the Minister will have some comments to make.
I have three questions. First, why was it felt that clause 23(4)(a) had to be inserted, especially as clause 23(2)(a) already confines the power to devolved matters? Secondly, what does Government amendment No. 225 mean? I simply do not understand it. It would not win any plain English awards in its totality. I shall not enter into what the Scots or Gaelic might be.
Amendment No. 225 may be aimed at an individual with more than one capacity—one devolved and one reserved—so that, if he was called about the one, he could not be questioned about the other by the sneaky people who will be elected to the Scottish Parliament. It is not clear. Perhaps the Minister could give examples of the sort of people that the provision is meant to catch. I cannot see what the Government are so nervous about. Clause 23, with clauses 83, 84 and 85 as drafted, seems to be designed to give a narrow interpretation of the people whom the Scottish Parliament can call before it.
On the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), an independent Parliament would of course have no jurisdiction to summon people from outwith its borders to give evidence on the activities of a body affects Scotland. We are all well aware of the international dimension and the fact that many things happen outside a state's boundaries that can profoundly affect what happens within them.
There really is not much that we can do. Much as we might like to have President Clinton called here to explain his activities in Iraq or elsewhere, we know we cannot do that. However, as the Government are so fond of reminding us, the Scottish Parliament is not an independent Parliament, but a devolved Parliament, so I do not understand what objection there can be to our calling from outside Scotland those people who operate in some capacity that directly affects Scotland, albeit not necessarily in purely devolved matters.
Amendment No. 104 builds on the sentiments contained in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper, albeit inserting the word "require" rather than "invite", so that people cannot simply refuse to come. The Scottish Parliament will be hedged about with restrictions vis-a-vis representatives from bodies dealing with reserved matters, even where those bodies have an enormous impact on Scotland which is of social or economic significance—the phrase used in the White Paper. We shall return to aspects of this question when the Committee reaches clauses 83 to 85, so I shall not stray too far.
However, I shall quote the entirety of paragraph 2.11, because it is important that people are reminded of what was promised in the White Paper. It says:
In certain reserved areas the activities of other UK/GB bodies which are accountable to the UK Parliament will continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland, and therefore likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament. The Government propose that the Scottish Parliament should be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence before its committees from bodies operating in reserved areas in relation to their activities in or affecting Scotland.

The White Paper goes on to list some examples of those bodies:
energy regulators such as the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office of Gas Supply; the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator; the Health and Safety Commission; the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission; the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency; broadcasting and telecommunication organisations such as the BBC and the Independent Television Commission; and the Post Office.
Between the White Paper and the Bill being published, that has all disappeared. The promises made in paragraph 2.11 are not allowed for in clause 23 or in clause 83. None of the examples given in the White Paper of cross-border public bodies have found their way into annexe E of the guidance notes, which is the indicative list of what the Government regard as cross-border public bodies. Therefore, we face a gaping hole in what was promised.
I note, in passing, that the Scottish Law Commission does appear in annexe E as a cross-border public body, which is an interesting concept. Under the legislation as it stands, the Scottish Parliament would be unable to require a representative from the Scottish Law Commission to appear before it and give any sort of evidence. At the same time, two bodies named in the White Paper are conspicuously absent from the annexe E list—the broadcasting bodies, the BBC and the ITC, which triggered my contribution on Second Reading. Obviously, I shall return to that subject when the Committee debates the amendments to clause 83 and schedule 5.
I want to know where precisely we can find the commitment given in paragraph 2.11 of the White paper implemented in the legislation. Why have the Government turned their backs on their promise?

Mr. McAllion: I hope that, when the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) made her allegation that Anglo-Saxon supremacists sat on the Government Benches, she excluded me from their number.

Ms Cunningham: Absolutely.

Mr. McAllion: If there is one thing no one can accuse me of, it is of being an Anglo-Saxon anything. No doubt the Opposition Front Benchers will accuse me of making a nationalist contribution to the debate; but I would remind the House that all hon. Members are nationalists of one sort or another. There are all sorts in the House: English nationalists, such as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks for the Conservative party on Scottish affairs; British nationalists, which probably encompasses the majority of hon. Members; Welsh nationalists; Scottish nationalists in the Scottish National party and the Labour party; Irish nationalists—

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Glasgow nationalists.

Mr. McAllion: —and Glasgow nationalists, who sit next to me. "Nationalist" is used as a term of abuse by the official Opposition, but it is a loose term and often used inaccurately. I wish that the official Opposition would use it with greater precision, so that people could understand that nationalism is something which every party in this country believes in—it is just a question of which sort of nationalism a party supports.
During earlier debates, a whole series of amendments were rejected—especially by Labour Members—on the basis that they were too prescriptive and were trying to tell the Scottish Parliament how it should run its business. It was said that we should leave the Scottish Parliament to decide for itself how it should conduct its own affairs. I agree with that view, but clause 23, especially lines 11 to 21, is highly prescriptive about what the Scottish Parliament can do in pursuit of its own devolved affairs. That is where I find the problem lies.
The hon. Member for North Essex described the powers in clause 23 as draconian, but they are not draconian if one is exempted, and lines 11 to 21 ensure that a whole swathe of people are exempted from the powers that should be available to the Scottish Parliament to summon documents and witnesses to give evidence before their Committees on devolved issues.
The first category of exemptions is "a person outside Scotland". That is a very wide definition—there are all sorts of people outside Scotland whom the Scottish Parliament might ask to produce documents or to appear as witnesses in inquiries into devolved matters. As far as I know, Mr. Sean Connery would fall into the category of a person outside Scotland. Perhaps he intends to remain a person outside Scotland, but he certainly takes a close interest in Scottish affairs and Scottish politics—indeed, he takes a close interest in the Scottish National party and its funding. In inquiries into the way in which political parties are funded in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament might well want to summon him as a witness; but, as a person outside Scotland, he will be able to tell them to get lost. I do not think that that is a clever position for us to get ourselves into. The same would apply to Hong Kong drug traffickers, who have been known to fund the Conservative party in Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: Mr. Sean Connery would be delighted to appear before a Scottish Parliament, either as a witness or perhaps in another capacity.

Mr. McAllion: I take it that by "in another capacity" the hon. Gentleman means as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Clause 4, which sets out the details of who can stand as a candidate, does not say that one actually has to live in Scotland. I suppose that it would be possible for Mr. Sean Connery to stand for a Scottish Parliament as an SNP candidate, get elected and then, because there is no requirement that MSPs should stay in Scotland, he could still be beyond the power of the Scottish Parliament to require him to attend and give evidence before one of its Committees. It is nonsense.
In an earlier debate, we discovered that Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay, the Prince and Steward of Scotland, both of whom can be described as persons outside Scotland and who have the Crown interest which requires the Scottish Parliament to seek their approval before its Bills can become law, cannot be required to come before a Scottish Committee and give evidence on why the Crown interest requires them to give their assent to Scottish Bills before they can become law. The whole thing is complete nonsense.
I am especially worried about the part of the clause that says that
a Minister of the Crown, or … a person in Crown employment
does not have to come before the Scottish Parliament's Committees. That is a serious issue.
Let us consider the financing of a Scottish Parliament. The bulk of the Scottish Parliament's expenditure will come from the Westminster Parliament through the Scottish block grant, which is determined under the Barnett-Goschen formula. We were continually told in debates in the House that that formula would be subject to review as soon as the Scottish Parliament was set up and the Westminster Parliament began to realise how much power had been given away to the Scottish Parliament.
In fact, we were told that the formula would be subject to radical review and that that review would be carried out in Westminster by UK Ministers and civil servants. They would decide how the Barnett-Goschen formula should be altered, which would have huge implications for the Scottish Parliament, and the settlement would be imposed on the Scottish Parliament.
On page 27 of "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right", the Scottish Constitutional Convention recognised that the Barnett-Goschen formula would have to be reviewed. However, it was established in the convention that that review would have to be conducted jointly by the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.
If the Committee in a Scottish Parliament that is responsible for financial matters cannot summon any Treasury Minister, cannot ask for any Treasury documents and cannot ask any Treasury civil servant to appear before it to take part in an investigation into how the Barnett-Goschen formula might be reviewed, that is a very sorry state of affairs indeed, and one which we should not be legislating for.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Swinney: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Wallace: Perhaps the Minister will clarify this when he replies to the debate. The hon. Gentleman may have put it too widely when he said that the Scottish Parliament could not ask. I suspect that a Scottish Parliament could request. What it cannot do is to compel, with all the accompanying criminal sanctions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if there were to be a debate in the Scottish Parliament on the future of the Barnett-Goschen formula, it would be very helpful indeed to have the attendance of Treasury Ministers and officials, but I believe that it would be permissible for them to come, although they could not be compelled under threat of criminal sanction.

Mr. McAllion: I hope that that would be the case, but I do not have a great deal of confidence. If one watches closely the way in which these debates are conducted, one sees that hon. Members continually assert the supremacy and the sovereignty of this Parliament over the Scottish Parliament. They, and they alone, will decide the funding and the finance of the Scottish Parliament through the


Scottish block. I do not know whether the Scottish Parliament can request them to produce documents and to give evidence in person.
I do not want to alarm Ministers, but they will not always be there. At some time, there will be a Tory party back in power and back in office in this country, and then there could be real problems.

Mr. John Hayes: rose—

Mr. Grieve: rose

Mr. McAllion: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee—West, is it?

Mr. McAllion: East.

Mr. Hayes: East, yes. I only said that to annoy the hon. Gentleman, actually. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned supremacy, but, as we tried to explain earlier in Committee—I intervened on the hon. Gentleman then—the whole nature of sovereignty is the implied supremacy that sovereignty grants. When it comes to delegation of political power—I would go as far as to say division; there is some semantic difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and me in this, but the principle is the same—one can divide political power but not sovereignty, because sovereignty implies supremacy. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that, given the comments that he has made on previous days in Committee and tonight.

Hon. Members: Speech.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. McAllion: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will be more upset at my being described as the hon. Member for Dundee, West than I was, if the truth be known.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings does not grasp the reality of sovereignty in the modern world. His is a public school idea of sovereignty—nanny and the housemaster and headmaster. There can be only one headmaster in the school, and so on. It need not be like that in the real world: different groups can share sovereignty.
When we are setting up a Scottish Parliament, we must establish its right to conduct its affairs, just as the Westminster Parliament can conduct its affairs. Surely the Scottish Parliament must have the right to summon

witnesses, and require documents to be provided, when they affect the Scottish Parliament's interests. That is the key.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Swinney: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I give way to the hon. Gentleman with the glasses.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Swinney: I thought it was me.

Mr. Grieve: In the House, we have a merger of the Executive and the legislature, so Ministers of the Crown belong to the party that commands the majority. Therefore, only in exceptional circumstances would a power to summon Ministers before the House be exercised. When one has a separate legislature, two different parties may be in power—one in each place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those circumstances, Ministers of the Crown at Westminster may require some protection from being summoned arbitrarily to—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Canavan: Sit down.

The First Deputy Chairman: Please take a seat. Interventions must be brief. We cannot have a speech. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is addressing the Committee.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman does not grasp the significance of the issue. We are trying to set up a constitutional settlement that will allow a Scottish Parliament to continue to function within the United Kingdom in tandem with a Parliament at Westminster. I agree that party politics can wreck that relationship, and I accept that, if one of the parties decides to wreck that relationship, it will lead to the severing of the United Kingdom. However, I know that my party is not out to wreck that relationship; and I should have thought that the Conservatives, of all people, would not be out to wreck the Union.
Of course, members of the Scottish National party are out to wreck the Union; they have every right to wreck it, because they believe in independence. They should not be condemned for that—it is a different point of view, and when the Scottish people accept their argument, every Labour Member will accept the argument as well, because we are democrats. We accept that, if we lose the argument, we have to move with the people. I wish that the Conservative party would understand that and begin to move with the times as well and stop tabling wrecking amendments, as Conservative Members have done tonight.
I have great sympathy with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) about broadcasting, because there are serious anxieties about it. Earlier, we had a debate about whether the Scottish Parliament should facilitate the use of Gaelic as a language in the Scottish Parliament. If Gaelic is to survive, it must be encouraged on television and radio; yet broadcasting is a matter reserved for the Westminster Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament may set up a Committee to promote the use of Gaelic. It would have no power to require people from the BBC or ITV or BBC radio to produce documents or to appear as witnesses to talk about how they treat Gaelic in their broadcasting. That is very serious.
There is also the question of listed events. The Scottish cup final is very dear to many of us, although it is a long time since Celtic won it. It matters to many people in Scotland. Some time, the BBC and ITV may decide that they do not want the cup final to continue to be a listed event—that it costs too much and must be dropped, to go to Sky Television. The Scottish Parliament would be unable to summon anyone from the BBC to hold them to account for that decision. That cannot be right.
We must start thinking seriously about the implications of the way in which we keep trying to hedge the Scottish Parliament in with qualifying clauses—especially clause 23.
Finally, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, in all sincerity, that one of my great hopes for the Scottish Parliament is that its Committee structure will not minor that in Westminster. Our Committee structure makes a mockery of Committees. Our Select Committees are very good—they are successful, in the main, and they work well—but the Standing Committees are a joke. Committee members from the Government party are told, "Do not speak. Sit there; answer your mail. You need not even listen—just vote on the amendments." Opposition Members waste time all day, talking nonsense, simply trying to reach some sort of agreement. Most Committee members know nothing about the Bill that they are speaking about.
I hope that a Scottish Parliament will set up hybrid Committees, which are Select Committees and Standing Committees, and deal with the legislation within their remit. The Committee members would become expert on their subject. Not just the Executive, but those Committees, should have the right to initiate legislation. The Chairman of the Committee, if he could achieve a majority on the Committee, could do so as well.
Such Committees will be essential to the success of the Scottish Parliament, and they will set precedents which I believe the Westminster Parliament will belatedly have to follow because the Scottish Parliament is so good. In those circumstances, we cannot hem in the Committees by denying them the powers that every ordinary Committee at Westminster has.
I plead with Ministers to think again about lines 11 to 21 of clause 23, and about the whole clause. It is too prescriptive and hems in the Scottish Parliament far too much.

Mr. Wallace: Clause 23 is important, not least because those of us who were involved in the constitutional

convention, and who argued the case for a Scottish Parliament in the referendum campaign, hope that the Parliament will lean heavily on a Committee structure. We want Committees to go out and take evidence; we want pre-legislative Committees; we want Committees that will try to give substance to our avowal that the Parliament would include the people of Scotland. We said that it would be inclusive and consultative, and the Committees' powers will make an important contribution to that.
I do not agree with amendment No. 163, which was moved by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), or with the reasons that he gave for it—the idea that a two-thirds majority was necessary before the Parliament could exercise the powers to compel witnesses or seek the production of documents. Especially if power was exercised by Committees, Parliament might never get off the mark if it constantly had to put together two-thirds majorities.
If the Committees are working as we expect, the one-party concern expressed by the hon. Member for North Essex would have no basis. The Committees should work on a cross-party basis. The experience in this House, especially in Select Committees, is that, when they do so, they are far more effective than when they become narrowly partisan.
The hon. Member for North Essex said that the powers were not appropriate because they were far too draconian. He pointed to the fact that in this House people seized the opportunity to give evidence to Select Committees, and that the powers were there as a backstop. That is precisely what is proposed. I do not believe that powers of compulsion would regularly be used. The important point is that they should exist.
If we accept, for the purposes of the debate, that power is devolved, it must be expressly set down in the Bill that the Scottish Parliament has the power to compel witnesses and to compel the production of documents, or it could be challenged by anyone who did not turn up. I do not believe that, because it is written into the Bill, the powers would regularly be used.
I support amendment No. 164, although I do not interpret it in the same way as the hon. Member for North Essex. It would not necessarily exempt regulators, as he said. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and I signed up to it because it is a probing amendment to find out what was meant by the phrase
exercises the judicial power of the State.
Would the provision apply, for example, to members of a children's hearing, who exercise quasi-judicial powers? Would a judge of the European Court of Human Rights or of the International Court of Justice be covered by it? Can the Minister tell us more precisely what is meant by that phrase?

Mr. Dalyell: This is rather an important matter affecting, for instance, Judge David Edward. As he is based at The Hague, is he outside or not?

Mr. Wallace: That is extremely pertinent. Judge David Edward would be resident in Scotland and in other respects could come within the ambit of the powers. That is why it would be helpful if the Minister could specify the scope of the provision.
Amendment No. 249 provides the defence of reasonable excuse if a person fails to answer a question posed by the Parliament under the powers permitted. As there are sanctions attached, some defence should be available if there is reasonable excuse. I hope that the Minister will be minded to consider the amendment.
New clause 2 reflects the points made by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) with regard to the fulfilment of the Government's commitment in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper. That is a helpful paragraph, which acknowledges that there will be reserved areas where activities are carried on that have a direct effect on Scotland.
The White Paper provided that the Scottish Parliament would be entitled to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence by various bodies. As the hon. Lady read out the list, hon. Members could readily recognise how relevant those might be—the work of the Post Office, for example, and the Health and Safety Commission. Rail franchising has particular relevance, given the history of rail privatisation and its effect on Scotland, with the proposed withdrawal of sleepers and Motorail. The Scottish Parliament would have been keen for evidence to be given by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator.
In broadcasting, the merger of Grampian Television and STV recently took place. Under the terms of the franchise, Grampian has requirements in relation to local content in its news broadcasting. The Independent Television Commission is required to enforce those requirements. I am not suggesting for a moment that Grampian will not continue to fulfil them, but if there were a concern that it was falling short, it would be helpful if the ITC could give evidence to the Parliament.
8.45 pm
New clause 2 reflects the terms of the White Paper, which states:
the Scottish Parliament should be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence before its committees".
New clause 2 does not make that a requirement, but allows the Parliament to request the attendance of a person or the production of documents in reserved areas.
The only potential sanction is that, if a person declined that request, he would be required to inform the Clerk of the Parliament in writing of the reasons for that refusal. We are not trying to impose any legal sanctions, but it is a legitimate political point to require the person to explain his refusal. It would be a matter for political debate, but it would not mean that the Parliament was trying to exert power over reserved subjects.
The rest of the new clause is modelled on clause 23. I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister. If the present wording does not do so, I hope that he will tell us whether it is covered by a provision elsewhere in the Bill, which has escaped the notice of my hon. and learned Friend, the hon. Lady and myself, or whether, at a later stage in the passage of the Bill—new clause 2 will not be voted on until much later, if it comes to a vote—the Government intend to table a clause to give substance to the valuable provisions set out in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: I freely confess that I was one of those who supported the Government decision to take the Bill

on the Floor of the House, but I hope that colleagues are beginning to realise how it came about that, in 1978–79, debates took 47 days on the Floor of the House. Contrary to general mythology, there was not much filibustering, but there were many, many problems. Time is receding, and I can only hope for injury time for important clauses.
Few things are more important than the exercise of the judicial power of the state. I shall be brief on amendments Nos. 164 and 167. Clause 23(4) provides:
That power is not exercisable in relation to…
a judge of any court or a member of any tribunal which exercises the judicial power of the State.
I repeat the question that was put by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is an urgent question concerning the children's hearings. Do they exercise the judicial power of the state? The point was made about Judge David Edward. What about the courts of the Church of Scotland—for example, the kirk sessions? They are courts, but appear not to be exercising state power. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
Amendment No. 167 provides a reasonable excuse defence in relation to a failure to answer a question posed by the Parliament under the powers permitted under clause 23. Although Parliament is being treated as a court, and solicitors will be able to claim legal professional privilege, there is in general no public interest defence that would apply to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, unless it is anticipated that public interest would be within the bounds of a reasonable excuse to refuse or fail to attend proceedings. There is, however, no reasonable excuse provision in respect of answering questions by the Parliament, and the amendment takes account of that issue.
Do the terms of clause 24(1)(b) constitute a strict liability offence? Is there no defence to a charge of failing to answer the Parliament's questions? In any case, for a defence provision, the terms are vague. Who is entitled to ask questions and demand an answer? Is it a Member of the Holyrood Parliament? Is it the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General or a Clerk of the Parliament? All those questions must be answered, because of the imprecise wording.
If Select Committees are to be effective, they may have to have different rules for those tight situations when witnesses have no intention of answering. I attended both sittings when Sir Leon Brittan and Sir Robert Armstrong, as he was then, appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. If the rules had been different, the House of Commons might have got a bit further on those occasions. Therefore, this is not just a theoretical question; it is a very real question about the effectiveness of a parliament.

Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that clause 23(3) was too wide, but I think that it is too narrow.
Why is there no specific mention in clauses 23 or 24 of the status of ordinary Members of this United Kingdom Parliament? Are we or are we not covered by the powers that are being given to the Scottish Parliament to have people summoned before it? It may be said that this United Kingdom Parliament will, by definition, have responsibility only for reserved powers, but we all know from our postbags that we are often asked to intervene with a range of public and private bodies, national and


international, which have no direct accountability to the House. I have had letters in my postbag this week asking me to intervene with the Governments of Iran, Indonesia and Tunisia.
It is hardly surprising that we must expect that Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, particularly Scottish Members of this Parliament, will be invited to opine upon, write letters to or perhaps intervene directly in affairs that are reserved under the Act for the Scottish Parliament.
Is there any prospect that Members of this Parliament could under any circumstances be summoned before the Scottish Parliament under these provisions? We have talked about Ministers of the Crown, but what about ordinary Back-Bench Members? In particular, what are the implications for parliamentary privilege? Nothing in clauses 23 or 24 specifically exempts Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from addressing matters relevant to the Scottish Parliament or says whether, if we raise matters on the Floor of the House, we might be summoned before the Scottish Parliament when we next visit Scotland. I should like a clear answer, please, to those questions.

Mr. McLeish: This has been a good debate and I shall try to answer most, if not all, of the questions that have been put.

Mr. Ancram: It will be the first time.

Mr. McLeish: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply. He may enjoy the experience.
The amendments to the clauses relating to the Parliament's powers to call for witnesses and documents address the issue from a number of different standpoints. It may be helpful if I first make three points to clarify the intention of the provisions.
First, the purpose of these provisions is to give the Scottish Parliament the right to require oral and written evidence relating to devolved or executively devolved matters. That is the basic principle underlying these provisions. Those outside Scotland and Ministers and civil servants of the United Kingdom Government can be summoned only if they have responsibilities for devolved or executively devolved matters, and they can be summoned only to speak about those matters. Those are, of course, the matters for which the Scottish Parliament will be responsible. We take the view that it should not have powers of compulsion in relation to matters where it does not have responsibility.
Secondly, some of the amendments tabled suggest some confusion about the definition of a cross-border public body. I remind hon. Members that cross-border public bodies are bodies which have functions in or as regards Scotland in relation to devolved matters as well as other functions. Those other functions may relate to reserved matters in Scotland or to matters elsewhere in the United Kingdom. They are not bodies that deal with reserved matters only.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister clarify what exactly is meant by the term "relating to Scotland"? For example, the Scottish Parliament has a responsibility for foreign

policy because it is free to discuss foreign policy. Therefore, could it summon the Foreign Secretary to give evidence on the question of, say, foreign policy as it affects Scotland?

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that point in a minute. The legislative competence is at Westminster. The Foreign Secretary could be invited, but not summoned.
Thirdly, those who are responsible only for reserved matters cannot be summoned in connection with those matters. They can, however, be invited to attend and to submit documents in relation to reserved matters. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Parliament from inviting evidence about anything from anyone, and that is as it should be. I hope that that captures some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members in relation to matters in which the Parliament might be involved.

Mr. Canavan: I accept that people can be invited rather than summoned, but some people might want to refuse the invitation. If someone in England or Wales had been trying to bribe a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the appropriate Committee of the Scottish Parliament might want to summon that person to give evidence before it. If he refused to come, we would have no powers to force him to do so.

Mr. McLeish: There is a distinction, on which I shall expand, between the devolved matter and the reserved matter. It is important to establish that as a principle. We are keen to have a common-sense, balanced view of the Parliament's responsibilities in devolved matters. The central principle is the distinction between reserved and devolved matters. My hon. Friend will see that as I develop my contribution.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is seeking to answer the point about calling witnesses over matters that are reserved powers, but which have an impact in Scotland. Does he agree that there is nothing in the legislation to make it clear that Parliament can do that by the very nature of it being a request? Might not it be helpful if the existence of that power were put beyond doubt? It would be helpful if it were in the Bill.

Mr. McLeish: We take the opposite view. Many matters raised in debate could be put into the Bill. Parliament can invite anyone to contribute on anything to the Parliament. On that basis, it is assumed that that will happen. We see no particular need to write that into the Bill.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am interested in what the Minister says, and I am glad to hear it in so far as it goes because, as I understand it, the Minister is saying that anyone can invite anyone, and explicit permission is not needed to do so. The issue concerns not so much the invitation, as the response to the invitation. Would the Scottish Parliament prefer to invite or compel the Director-General of the BBC to explain his decision on "Panorama"?

Mr. McLeish: There clearly cannot be an element of compulsion to what is merely an invitation. If a person who is part of an organisation does not respond to an invitation, clearly the Parliament cannot discipline that


person. The BBC is not regarded as a cross-border public body because, in terms of the regulatory framework, legislative competence is based at Westminster.

Mr. Salmond: Anybody can invite anybody to do anything. Any hon. Member has the power of invitation. The Minister is right to say that it does not need to be written into legislation, but if the Scottish Parliament has competence—if the Minister wants to stay faithful to the White Paper, he must recognise that the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) is perfectly apposite—it should be able to compel an organisation such as the BBC, with interests in Scotland, as mentioned in the White Paper, to give evidence in so far as those interests affect the Scottish people and what the Parliament will be discussing.

Mr. McLeish: That is simply not what should happen. We seem to be stuck on a point about inviting anyone on anything. That power will be available to the Parliament, but that is not the important issue behind clause 23. If I could make some progress, I could start to address some of the issues that were raised.
The power to require evidence should relate directly to the Parliament's responsibilities and to those who are accountable to it for exercising them. That seems straightforward and there is an element of common sense in that. Those who are not formally accountable to the Parliament, however, will be able to attend and give evidence, assuming that they are willing to do so.
9 pm
I should like to consider the Government amendments to clauses 23 and 24, and to schedule 4. These are in line with the principles that I have just noted. I shall then respond to the amendments proposed by other right hon. and hon. Members.
Amendments Nos. 223, 224 and 225 will clarify the matters in relation to which the Scottish Parliament can exercise its power of summons, and in particular the circumstances in which Ministers of the United Kingdom Government and their civil servants may be summoned.
Amendment No. 224 is the main amendment of the group. Its purpose is to amend clause 23(3). It was not intended that the clause should enable the Parliament to summon United Kingdom Ministers and their civil servants unless they, rather than the Scottish Executive, were responsible for functions concerning devolved matters. As the clause stands, however, it would enable the Parliament to compel the attendance of Ministers of the Crown, and United Kingdom civil servants, where they were exercising functions that they were permitted to exercise concurrently with the Scottish Ministers—for example, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is permitted under clause 52(f) of the Bill to continue to provide financial assistance to industry in Scotland, such as by giving grants to particular industry sectors.
To subject United Kingdom Ministers and civil servants to the Scottish Parliament's power of summons in such cases constitutes a form of double accountability. Ministers of the Crown and United Kingdom civil servants exercising these functions will use resources voted by the United Kingdom Parliament and should be accountable to it and not to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will, however, be able to—I use the phrase again—invite them to attend.
The amendment also clarifies a related point by providing that United Kingdom Ministers and their civil servants cannot be summoned before the Scottish Parliament just because it is provided in, say, an executive devolution order under clause 59 that the Scottish Ministers must be consulted or their agreement sought about the exercise of a function by a United Kingdom Minister that concerns a reserved matter.

Mr. Salmond: Let us take as an example the concordat that the Minister and his hon. Friends are seeking to arrange between the Scottish Office, Locate in Scotland and the Department of Trade and Industry. If the Scottish Parliament wanted to examine the concordat to see whether it met its requirements, it would certainly want to summon its own Ministers, but would it not also want to summon the other half of the bargain—Department of Trade and Industry Ministers? Why is that summons not allowed on the face of the Bill?

Mr. McLeish: Returning to first principles, the concordats will be concluded between Scottish and Westminster Ministers. I just explained that one of those groups will be covered. The fundamental point is that there will be an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to invite hon. Members of the Westminster Parliament to participate in the Scottish Parliament if they want to accept the invitation. There is no summoning. It is clear that, in terms of the split between devolved and reserved powers, double accountability should not exist.

Mr. Swinney: May I put another scenario to the Minister, where a one-way street might be difficult? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) mentioned revising the Parliament's funding mechanism. If, in the circumstances, this House were to proceed with a review of the need for public expenditure, as the Treasury Select Committee suggested the House might wish to do in the future, the Westminster Parliament would be able to compel Scottish Members to make representations, but the Scottish Parliament would not be able to compel Westminster Ministers to take account of the fact that there were imbalances in spending in the rest of the United Kingdom, but not in Scotland. That would be totally unfair.

Mr. McLeish: The Government are not trying to conceal anything—we have been open. The point is obvious in terms of devolved and reserved powers, and invitations and summonses. I cannot be clearer in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) a few minutes ago.
Government amendment No. 225 seeks to amend subsection (4) to make it clear that the power to summon does not apply to a person in connection with discharging functions of a body that is concerned only with reserved matters. It takes account of the fact that someone might have two sets of responsibilities—one reserved and one devolved—or that the Parliament might want to call someone living in Scotland in connection with a devolved matter.

Mr. McAllion: I accept the distinction that my hon. Friend has drawn between reserved and devolved powers. He will remember, however, that the Labour party, under the Scottish Constitutional Convention, gave


a commitment to a joint review of the Barnett-Goschen formula between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. It seems to be a serious watering down of that commitment to say that the Scottish Parliament should not have the power to summon Treasury Ministers so that they can take part, on an equal basis with the Westminster Parliament, in the joint review of the Barnett-Goschen formula.

Mr. McLeish: I do not want to get involved in a substantive discussion about the Barnett formula. The matter is simply not on the agenda, politically or in terms of the Bill. Where reserved matters are being discussing at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament will have the right to invite, not to summon. It is as clear-cut as that.

Mr. Swinney: The Minister is distinguishing between devolved and reserved powers. If the distinction is so clear, why do we have so many concordats to cover the grey areas, which seem to be the matters on which the Scottish Parliament should have the right to question UK Ministers and to compel them to answer?

Mr. McLeish: I am not aware that the matters that we are discussing are littered with concordats. I do not want to go over the points that hon. Members have raised.
The purpose of Government amendments Nos. 226 to 228 is to remove any doubt about when procurators fiscal may decline, in proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, to answer questions or produce documents relating to particular criminal cases.
Clause 26(3) enables the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland to decline to answer questions or produce documents relating to the operation of the criminal prosecution system in a particular case if he considers that answering the question or producing the document might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case, or that it would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. In proceedings in this House, the Law Officers may also decline to answer questions on similar grounds.
The problem that we have encountered is whether that provision would entitle a procurator fiscal to decline to answer on the same grounds. In solemn proceedings, a procurator fiscal acts on behalf of, and in the name of, the Lord Advocate and would be entitled, under clause 26, to refuse to answer questions about any prosecution decisions on the basis that the Lord Advocate had instructed him not to answer. It would then be for the Parliament to decide whether to summon the Lord Advocate to pursue the matter.
However, there is room for doubt about whether a procurator fiscal would be so protected in respect of other proceedings, such as summary proceedings or petition procedure, where complaints run in the name of the procurator fiscal and prosecution decisions are taken by the procurator fiscal rather than in the name of, or by, the Lord Advocate. The amendments remove the scope for doubt.
Government amendment No. 226 adds subsection (9) to clause 23, to provide that a procurator fiscal in proceedings of the Scottish Parliament may decline to answer any question or produce any document relating to the operation of the criminal prosecution system in a

particular case where the Lord Advocate considers that prejudice might be caused in that case, or that to do so would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, and has authorised him to decline to do so. If the Parliament is not satisfied, it can, of course, call the Lord Advocate to appear before it.
Amendment No. 43, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), would extend the Parliament's power to call for witnesses and documents in relation to devolved matters to include UK Ministers, and public servants and persons generally outside Scotland. In the Government's view that would go too far.
Under the clause as it stands, United Kingdom Ministers and civil servants may be required to give evidence if they have responsibilities relating to devolved matters concerning Scotland, or executively devolved matters. The same applies to anyone else outside Scotland who has such responsibilities. My hon. Friend's amendment would enable the Parliament to summon anyone, wherever they lived in the United Kingdom, irrespective of whether or not they had responsibilities relating to devolved matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the clause strikes the right balance, and I ask him not to press his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 163 and 165 would require the Parliament, and its Committees, to vote by a two-thirds majority before exercising the power of summons. In our view, the way in which the Parliament reaches a decision to use the power should be a matter for the Parliament itself. It is not appropriate for the Bill to impose such a requirement.
The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 161 and 162. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) does not want the Scottish Parliament to be able to call Ministers of the Crown to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament in any circumstances. That would not be right. The Scottish Parliament should be able to call for evidence from Ministers of the Crown who discharge functions in relation to fully or executively devolved matters in Scotland. Such a situation may arise if a United Kingdom Minister continues to discharge functions relating to a public body in Scotland that is concerned with devolved as well as reserved matters, and which has been listed under an order under clause 83. We shall obviously deal with that procedure later. On that basis, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press those amendments.
Amendment No. 164 seeks to delete the reference in clause 23(4) to the exercise of the judicial power of the state. The phrase is self-explanatory: it refers to those courts and tribunals whose functions are judicial in character. There are bodies called tribunals that do not exercise the judicial power of the state—a phrase previously used in legislation—and they ought not to be excluded from the Parliament's power to summon persons to give evidence. Given that clarification, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister clarify the position of children's hearings? Are they covered by this clause?

Mr. McLeish: My judgment is that they are not covered by this subsection, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Dalyell: Is a judge of the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights or the


International Court of Justice a judge of a court that exercises the judicial power of the state? My hon. Friend may want to say something about the Church of Scotland courts.

Mr. McLeish: On my hon. Friend's first point, I think that such a judge would be excluded. I shall extend him the courtesy of sending him details on that point, and on the other matter of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister send a copy to the Opposition?

Mr. McLeish: Of course, as a courtesy, the letters will be copied to the Opposition.
The Opposition raised the issue of the judicial power of the state, but the phrase is self-explanatory. However, I have agreed to provide letters of clarification on outstanding points, which I hope will deal with the matter.
Amendment No. 166 would add to subsection (8) a reference to a court in that part of the United Kingdom in which the person lives or works. At present, the clause affords a person who is required to give evidence or produce documents the same opportunity to refuse to answer a question or to produce a document as he would have if he were in court in Scotland. Given that the legal system in Scotland differs from that in other parts of the UK, not surprisingly the privileges recognised there are not identical to those recognised in Scottish courts. We do not consider that it would be either helpful or appropriate for the Scottish Parliament in its proceedings to attempt to recognise rights and privileges available in courts in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Amendments Nos. 167 and 249 would amend the provision that makes it an offence for a person not to answer a question put to him when he is attending proceedings of the Parliament. Although clause 24 provides that it is an offence to refuse to answer a question, a person is not obliged to answer questions unless they are about devolved or executively devolved matters.

Mr. Salmond: We discussed the matter of the concordat being examined by Committees in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament will be allowed to summon its Trade and Industry Minister, but, under existing powers, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the Westminster Parliament will be able to summon both United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and the Scottish Minister. That is not fair, and it is a weakening of what was understood to be the commitment. I recommend that the Minister thinks again.

Mr. McLeish: It is not a weakening of the commitment in relation to anything that we have said, including what was said in the White Paper. This brings us back to the central point that I have made in answering hon. Members' questions about matters reserved and matters devolved. When a concordat has been reached between Ministers at Holyrood and Ministers at Westminster, it should be about co-operation, and it will be about

dialogue. Let me make it clear, however, that the Minister involved in the Westminster Parliament can be invited, but cannot be summoned.

Mr. Swinney: The Minister talks of the advantage of basing concordats on dialogue and discussion, but how can there be a discussion if someone refuses to turn up?

Mr. McLeish: It is a question of first principles. I am in danger of repeating myself a great deal, but it is no great secret that, in relation to the concordat and the dialogue, the Scottish Executive—the Minister—will be accountable and responsible to the Scottish Parliament. At Westminster, the Minister involved in the discussions will be responsible to Westminster—and, of course, to Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster who are participating in the continuing work of the House of Commons.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a rather important question about amendment No.167? Do the terms of clause 24(1)(b) constitute—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's interventions. He seems to be reading items on to the record, which is not in the spirit of interventions. Interventions are supposed to relate to matters that a Minister has raised.

Mr. Dalyell: I have been asking very precise questions relating to the amendment. I was going to ask whether there was no defence to a charge of failing to answer the Parliament's questions. Moreover, I am told that the question of who is entitled to make demands for an answer is of some legal importance. Will that person be a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Clerk of the Parliament, a Minister in the Parliament or someone else?

Mr. McLeish: I am about to come to that.
Under clause 23, the notice requiring a person to attend must set out the matters relating to which he is required to give evidence. A witness is not guilty of an offence if he refuses to answer a question about something else. Clause 23 also says that a person is not obliged to answer a question that he would be entitled to refuse to answer in a court in Scotland—for example, if he might incriminate himself. I trust that, following that explanation, hon. Members will agree that the only reasonable excuses or causes that a person might have for not answering a question are already covered, and that the amendments are therefore unnecessary.
As for amendment No.168, under the provisions of the Oaths Act 1978, a person who objects to being sworn in has the right to make a solemn affirmation rather than take an oath. Accordingly, no express provision is required in the Bill. In the light of those explanations, I invite those concerned not to press amendments Nos.161 to 168 and amendment No. 249.
I think that amendments Nos.102 to 104 should also be rejected. I doubt whether, as drafted, they will achieve what those who tabled them wish—to empower the Parliament to compel Ministers of the Crown and representatives from "reserved matters" bodies, such as broadcasters, to give evidence about reserved matters. It would be wrong for the Parliament to have such a power.
Clause 23(1) and clause 23 (2) specify the matters in relation to which the Parliament should be able to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Those matters can be summarised as fully or executively devolved matters. They are the matters for which the Parliament and the Scottish Executive will be responsible. As I said, the Parliament should not have powers of compulsion in relation to matters over which it has no responsibility.
Even if the amendments were acceptable—which they are not—such persons would still be caught by the conditions in subsections (1) and (2) that any person can be compelled to give evidence and produce documents only about fully or executively devolved matters. I should stress that the fact that a function in a reserved area is relevant to a devolved function does not mean that it relates to it in terms of the Bill. I therefore hope that those amendments will not be pressed.
New clause 2 would confer an express power on the Scottish Parliament to request the attendance of witnesses and submission of documents on reserved matters as they affect Scotland. I tell the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), in the spirit of his speech, that such a provision is not necessary. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Parliament from inviting evidence about anything from anyone. I am repeating a point that I made earlier, but it is worth restating.
New clause 2 would limit the Parliament's powers by erecting a requirement that the evidence or documents requested should be on matters affecting Scotland. I envisage circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament would want to debate or investigate events overseas that, although of interest and concern in Scotland, could not be said to affect it. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland will agree that the new clause is unnecessary and that its precise wording is undesirable. I ask him not to press it.

Mr. Jenkin: We have had a most interesting and useful debate, which has clarified the issues surrounding clause 23. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the amendments tabled by Conservative Members and, because of his explanation of the clause and the Government's amendments to it, we shall not press any of our amendments.
I particularly welcome the tighter restrictions that amendment No. 224 will impose in the clause, thereby neatly avoiding what the Minister called the "problem of double accountability", which was the main concern of our amendments. I believe that he has responsibly addressed the issue. He is, of course, aware that the Scottish National party and others are looking for a row on the issue. Specifically, there are those who will deliberately misunderstand the nature and scope of concordats, how they will be negotiated and what they mean. I assure him that he will have our support in ensuring that those matters are dealt with responsibly.
The Minister made it clear that United Kingdom Ministers can be summoned only on issues for which the Scottish Parliament is responsible. It can invite evidence from anyone, but it cannot compel the Foreign Secretary to give evidence on foreign affairs. From what the

Minister was saying, I do not believe that the Parliament could compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give evidence on the Barnett formula or on arrangements that the UK Parliament was making—he seemed to confirm that—to determine Scotland's need and Scotland's block grant. He confirmed that the Scottish Parliament would not be able to summon people from the BBC about a programme broadcast in Scotland.
We regard those assurances as properly consistent with Ministers' comments in the White Paper. Those matters should be held to account on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, and are therefore properly the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. It seems absurd for someone now to say that democracy is somehow being denied because those matters will not be dancing to the tune of what we hope will be a minority in the Scottish Parliament.
I listened carefully to the speeches in the debate. The Secretary of State dealt well with the intervention of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham).
I tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that those who supported devolution on the basis of this Parliament not being sovereign are destined to be disappointed. Both today's debate and yesterday's debate have been clear on that point. If the relationship between the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament goes wrong, Conservative Members will be the last to blame. We warned that exactly that type of misunderstanding would lead to the possibility of a breakdown in the relationship.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East had an opportunity to vote for the status quo—so that Scotland's influence was maximised in the House, and so that the favourable number of Scottish Members could negotiate on the favourable funding formula that he now wants to protect—using the full powers of the Secretary of State and the full complement of Scottish Members.
In the light of the decision taken by the Scottish people, it is to the Government's credit that they are dealing with those matters rationally and responsibly. Where appropriate, we shall give them support. We welcome Government amendment No. 224.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 223, in page 11, line 14, at beginning insert 'other'.

No. 224, in page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) The power in subsection (1) is exercisable in relation to a person outside Scotland only in connection with the discharge by him of functions relating to matters within subsection (2).
(3A) That power is exercisable in relation to—

(a) a Minister of the Crown, or
(b) a person in Crown employment, within the meaning of section 191(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, other than a person mentioned in section 47(2) of this Act,

only in connection with the discharge by him of functions relating to matters within subsection (2) which are not functions mentioned in subsection (3B).

(3B) Those functions are—

(a) functions exercisable in or as regards Scotland by a Minister of the Crown as well as by the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) in relation to matters within subsection (2)(b), functions exercisable by a Minister of the Crown with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Scottish Ministers.'.

No. 225, in page 11, line 24, after 'matters', insert
'in connection with the discharge by him of those functions'.

No. 226, in page 12, line 3, at end insert—
'(9) A procurator fiscal is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document relating to the operation of the system of criminal prosecution in any particular case if the Lord Advocate—

(a) considers that answering the question or producing the document might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, and
(b) has authorised the procurator fiscal to decline to answer the question or produce the document on that ground.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS: OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 227, in page 12, line 15, after '23(8)', insert 'and (9)'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

ACTS OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 13, line 31, at end add
in relation to reserved matters'.—[Mr. Salmond]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 24, Noes 239.

Division No. 144]
[9.27 pm


AYES


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Salmond, Alex


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Stunell, Andrew



Swinney, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tonge,Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Wallace, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Willis, Phil


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. Donald Gorrie.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Alexander, Douglas
Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony





Battle, John
Grieve, Dominic


Bayley, Hugh
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Beard, Nigel
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Grogan, John


Begg, Miss Anne
Hain, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bercow, John
Hammond, Philip


Bermingham, Gerald
Hanson, David


Best, Harold
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Betts, Clive
Heald, Oliver


Blackman, Liz
Healey, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Heppell, John


Boswell, Tim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Bradshaw, Ben
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Browne, Desmond
Humble, Mrs Joan


Burden, Richard
Hurst, Alan


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hutton, John


Byers, Stephen
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Caplin, Ivor
Jenkin, Bernard


Cawsey, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Clelland, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Khabra, Piara S


Collins, Tim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Cooper, Yvette
Kingham, Ms Tess


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lansley, Andrew


Corston, Ms Jean
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cranston, Ross
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Linton, Martin


Dalyell, Tarn
Livingstone, Ken


Davidson, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lock, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Love, Andrew


Dawson, Hilton
McAvoy, Thomas


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
McCabe, Steve


Dismore, Andrew
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Dobbin, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Doran, Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Dowd, Jim
McDonnell, John


Drew, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Drown, Ms Julia
McIsaac, Shona


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McLeish, Henry


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Edwards, Huw
McWalter, Tony


Efford, Clive
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, Nigel
Mallaber, Judy


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flint, Caroline
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Merron, Gillian


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fox, Dr Liam
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Galbraith, Sam
Miller, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Moffatt, Laura


Gapes, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gardiner, Barry
Moran, Ms Margaret


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Godman, Norman A
Morley, Elliot


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mudie, George


Green, Damian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Skinner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Olner, Bill
Soley, Clive


O'Neill, Martin
Southworth, Ms Helen


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Spellar, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Squire, Ms Rachel


Paterson, Owen
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pollard, Kerry
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pond, Chris
Swayne, Desmond


Pope, Greg
Syms, Robert


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Walley, Ms Joan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
White, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rowlands, Ted
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Salter, Martin
Winnick, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Wise, Audrey


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wood, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wyatt, Derek


Shipley, Ms Debra



Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tellers for the Noes:


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Singh, Marsha
Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'so far as' and insert
only to the extent that'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 170, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'so far as' and insert 'to the extent that'.

No. 173, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
(f) it is incompatible with any international treaty obligation'.

No. 171, in page 14, leave out lines 15 to 18.

No. 172, in page 14, leave out lines 19 to 22.

Mr. Wallace: I shall try to be brief, because the important function of this group of amendments is to give the Minister the opportunity to reply, and perhaps to explain precisely what the clause means.
Amendment No. 8 would leave out the words "so far as" and replace them with the words:
only to the extent that".

If so amended, clause 28(1) would read:
An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law only to the extent that any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.
The purpose of that is to make it clear that, if an Act had 20 sections, one of which went beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament, the whole Act would not fall. Instead, it would not be operative only to the extent of that one section. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. May we have a bit more quiet in the Chamber, please?

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that my explanation accords with what was intended, and if we could have that on the record, it would be helpful. The Secretary of State laughs, but he knows that there may be someone somewhere down the line who would try to suggest otherwise—and no doubt would make a small fortune from doing so.
Our other aim is to try to elicit some elaboration of the provisions of the clause. As I understand it, if, for example, an amendment to Scots private law trespassed on, or had implications for, a reserved subject, so long as it did not materially go too far, it would be allowed, despite the fact that the subject was reserved.
The wording, however, is not entirely transparent, and our understanding is not helped by the notes on clauses, which say:
Subsection (6) makes clear that a provision does not relate to a reserved matter merely because it makes provision for purposes relating to devolved matters which incidentally affect reserved matters. It is intended that this should give statutory effect to the common law doctrine of respection.
I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) knows what "respection" means, but I am sure that I do not.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In St. Andrews we think of nothing else.

Mr. Wallace: Quite so. But seriously, the Committee would be helped if we could be given some elaboration of what was intended. I think that the provision was intended to be helpful, and I am sure that the Minister of State, or even the Secretary of State, would be delighted to tell the Committee how helpful it is.

Mr. Salmond: Like the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I am looking for assistance from the Minister. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, subsection (6) reads:
A provision does not relate to reserved matters merely because it makes provision for purposes relating to devolved matters which incidentally affects reserved matters unless it makes modifications of Scots private law or Scots criminal law, or of any enactment, as it applies to reserved matters.
I have gone through many Bills and there are always some clauses that cause difficulty, but that is one of the most confusing subsections that I have come across. I know that the Minister of State has such matters under his full command and will be able to elucidate and elaborate—[Interruption.]—thanks to the Secretary of State? That simply proves how difficult the clause is, because we are calling in the heavy artillery to try to elucidate. The Committee would be grateful if we could be given a fairly concise description.
We are talking about matters of competence. We saw in the previous vote the Labour and Conservative parties join each other in the Lobby, delighted with the idea that they could box in the Scottish Parliament but leave it open to the Westminster Parliament to intrude on devolved matters.
We have also had a debate on competence this evening, in which the Conservative party was delighted with the idea that the Scots Parliament could not summon a United Kingdom Minister, but a United Kingdom Parliament could summon a Scots Minister. To many of us it looks as if we are seeing the beginning of a one-way street—a retreat from understandings and commitments.
I hope that, in his explanation of clause 28(6), the Secretary of State will be able to give us some reassurance on wider matters of competence, which are causing many of us considerable concern.

Dr. Fox: Amendment No. 170 was suggested by the Law Society. Its reasoning was that subsection (1) appears to provide that the provisions of an Act of the Scottish Parliament may not be severable, in that, if any provision of an Act is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Act is not law. Its feeling was that, if the Scottish Parliament were to enact a miscellaneous provisions Act, the legislation could be challenged, not on the section issued but on another totally unrelated section, as not being legislatively competent. If the Secretary of State is unable to reply immediately, we would welcome a written answer.
Amendment No. 173 is consistent with clause 33. It would be more logical to put the provision in clause 28, because clause 33 gives the Secretary of State discretion to make the decision, and the amendment would state at this part of the Bill that the matter does not lie within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That would be a neater arrangement.
I, too, do not think that the clause will win the plain English award this year. If the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) found it impenetrable, the Secretary of State can imagine what a non-lawyer made of it. In subsection (4), it seems as though the legislation is competent if it deals with reserved matters, in which case the Bill would bring Scottish law into line with United Kingdom law. I wonder whether that interpretation is correct.
Subsection (5) allows the Scottish Parliament to make "incidental or consequential" amendments to United Kingdom law where it relates to devolved matters. What does the Secretary of State have in mind? Can he give us examples of when that would happen? Why is it necessary, and does it not make nonsense of the concept of legislative competence in the clause?
Many of us found it difficult to understand the clause, so I look forward to the Secretary of State's detailed explanations.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am glad to know that I am not the only Member of Parliament who finds the clause puzzling. I should be very grateful for some clarification, especially as the clause relates to schedule 5, on which I have tabled some amendments.
Equal opportunities is a reserved power, except for a couple of minor modifications set out in the Bill; but would it be acceptable if the Scottish Parliament wanted

to legislate on equal opportunities in relation to its own devolved powers? I am not sure whether the Bill as it stands means that the Westminster Parliament would legislate on everything to do with equal opportunities, even though it could not enforce equal opportunities in relation to powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We need clarity about that before we debate schedule 5.

Mr. Dalyell: Subsection (8) says:
An Act of the Scottish Parliament may modify a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament, whenever passed or made, if the modification is otherwise within its legislative competence.
The phrase "whenever passed or made" suggests that a Scottish Act can modify even an Act of Parliament passed subsequent to the enactment of the Bill. Given the mutually exclusive approach to vires, is it not difficult to imagine where it would be competent for both bodies to legislate and for the subsection to be applicable?
A narrow possibility is that the answer is the minor area of overlap mentioned earlier in the clause, but a wider possibility is that the subsection permits the Scottish Parliament to respond when Westminster uses its overriding power under clause 27(7). Surely that could set up the possibility of endless oscillation between the two Parliaments, which would be difficult to resolve. Will my right hon. Friend comment on what might be endless oscillation?

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) could never be accused of endless oscillation. He goes forward with a steady pace, fixing his beam on one objective, and pursuing it relentlessly.
I shall deal briefly with amendments Nos. 8 and 170, which have the enormous advantage of being simple and understandable. I can confirm to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that his understanding of our intention is correct. Very simply, if there is a challenge to the vires of a provision in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and if that is upheld, clearly the specific provision falls, but not the rest of the Act. That is the clarity which we are all anxious to establish. The argument is whether the phrase "so far as" is the proper way to do it.
I have never made myself out to be a draftsman—occasionally a barrack-room lawyer, but never a draftsman. I am advised—and I wish to take the advice that I have been given—that this is the right way to do it. Clearly, that is the interpretation that would be put upon it, and the interpretation that is intended. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not want to pursue that matter.
I am rather telescoping all the amendments, because we have only a few minutes to go. I wish to refer to some amendments which I concede are not quite so easy. Amendment No. 173 is sensible, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, because it puts in the matter of international treaty obligations at a more convenient point. I am advised, and I think that the Committee will follow the argument, that it would be wrong to treat this as a vires matter.
The courts are not normally in a position to assess the compatibility of our domestic law with our international obligations unless those international obligations have


been incorporated into our law. There are a number of international obligations which are not in that position. I accept that the position will, to some extent, be simplified when rights under the European convention on human rights and certain other matters of European Community law are imported into our law, but there will still be extensive areas which would not be justiciable, and therefore not suitable for the vires provision.
I do not need to stress to the House that I do not expect that machinery to be used in these particular circumstances. I would expect a Scottish Parliament—as with the UK Parliament—to recognise that, if we have international treaty obligations, our domestic law must not infringe and defy those obligations. If we accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woodspring—in a fair and probing spirit—and if we did get such a case, we might be in a situation in which we had no fail-safe arrangement of the kind anticipated. I have simplified the matter, but, for that reason, I invite him to withdraw that amendment.
We now come to one or two amendments which are a little more complex. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I said a word or two about the impact of clause 28. I must tell the House—not in a patronising or mocking spirit—that it is a difficult clause. It took me a long time to begin to see the shape of it through the technicalities of the language, which are complex and make easy reading difficult—there is no doubt about that.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland gave us the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the clause is intended to be helpful, and I think it will be helpful. A lot of genuine political argument has been—I will not say raging—present in the Chamber about what the Bill is essentially trying to do. This is another example where we have tried to make sure that there is a proper balance of responsibility between Westminster and the Parliament in Edinburgh.
There is an understandable tendency for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to establish criteria for the propriety of the Bill or its virtue which can be met only by a total independence solution. That is unfortunate, because he is a man of some skill, who, I have no doubt, read the White Paper many times before he came to his decision to advocate a yes vote. I recognise that he had reservations and would have liked the scheme to go further, but it is not proper for him now to come forward and establish his reservations as the test, as he consistently tries to do.
We are the ones who have tried throughout to be consistent, which means that we have had on occasion to defend principles that are important in terms of the proper responsibilities of this House. We are determined that we will continue to do so, because that is what Scotland endorsed in the referendum—if we are to take the White Paper seriously, as we are constantly encouraged to do.

Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is plainly wrong. In the vote that we have just had, we were supported by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is legitimate for him to support that, given his position. It is clear that many Labour Members were disturbed by the nature of our last debate and the idea of a one-way relationship. It is untrue to suggest that

it is only from an independence viewpoint that people are detecting a retreat from aspects of powers which it was widely assumed would be given to a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Dewar: This is where I deeply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He says that we are retreating from principles that were widely assumed. Anyone who read the White Paper carefully can see that we are delivering exactly on it. I shall not strain your patience, Mr. Martin, by re-fighting the battles of the past couple of hours, in which I was not involved, but it is clear that there are areas that are the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament. Scotland is represented in that Parliament.
Those areas of responsibility will have to watched from a Scottish point of view. They will be watched by Scottish Mps. Westminster Ministers will be accountable to them, as they are to representatives of other parts of the kingdom. Similarly, there are areas of responsibility where we will arm the Scottish Parliament with all the full powers of the Westminster Parliament. It is for those areas that it will be entrusted with responsibility when the Bill reaches the statute book.
Let me move to the theory of clause 28. I may be reaching more difficult ground, but it is in a sense a departure from the neat division to which we have been applying our minds in recent times. That division assumed that, by and large, there would be a reserved area of responsibility and the rest, which would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
In the area for which the Scottish Parliament is responsible, its writ runs, and it has the right to legislate. However, there will be terms in respect of which, if we had made the boundary absolute and held to it hard, we would have run up against the fact that there were areas of devolved responsibility where legislation would impact on reserved areas.
If we took an inflexible and pedantic view, we could argue that it would not be possible to use the power in the devolved areas, and could legislate on that basis. In so doing—I endorse the word that was fortunately happened on by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—we would be trespassing on the reserved areas. That would have created a difficulty that we were anxious to meet.
I do not recommend it for a relaxing Sunday afternoon, but clauses 28 and 33 must be taken together. They are complex, linguistically dense, provisions, but they are designed to ensure that, if a Scottish Parliament legislates properly in devolved areas of responsibility but trespasses on the reserved areas, we can ensure that it can be done, subject to a number of safeguards and definitions. Obviously, we cannot have people riding as if on a border foray of yesteryear into the territory of the other Parliament, but we must deal with the area covering the debatable lands, to continue the historic metaphor, without having a declaration of legislative civil war. That is the story of clauses 28 and 33. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Amendment No. 171 deals with the common law doctrine of respection. It recognises that legislative provision does not relate to a reserved matter merely because it makes provision for purposes relating to devolved matters that incidentally affect reserved matters. That is the general principle that I have been trying to enunciate for circumstances where there is an incidental


effect on a reserved matter. As long as there is a steady thrust within the devolved principles and the effect is purely incidental and consequential, it can survive that test.
I think it was either my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow or the hon. Member for Woodspring who raised the point, but, in the same way, we are applying the test that there should be proper cohesion—in other words, not that we are bringing Scots law into line with English law, but that the impact is even and equivalent on both sides of the border as between reserved and devolved powers. That is right and helpful.
What subsection (6) does and why it should not be taken out is that it provides the legislation—
It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [28 January], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NOT PROTECTED FROM MODIFICATION

Amendment made: No. 228, in page 58, line 31, at end insert—
procurators fiscal,'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29

RESERVED MATTERS

Amendments made: No. 229, in page 14, line 35, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.

No. 230, in page 14, line 36, leave out
the person making the legislation'
and insert 'She'.

No. 231, in page 14, line 37, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert "Order'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McFall.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that your predecessors in the Chair, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Second Deputy Chairman, would agree that, in the past five or so hours, there has been no time wasting or filibustering by any hon. Member on either side of the House, and that all the discussion was relevant and serious.
In the circumstances, surely it is deeply unsatisfactory—I shall not use the word "travesty" or anything of that kind—that crucial clauses of this constitutional Bill, covering matters such as changes to the list of reserved powers, scrutiny of Bills in relation to legislative competence and, for heaven's sake, the power of Secretary of State to intervene, have gone undiscussed in the House of Commons. That cannot be right.
I do not doubt for a moment that the business managers produced the schedule in good faith. However, I doubt that they anticipated that there would be a statement of 55 minutes by the Prime Minister on the events of 1972, in addition to business questions. I suppose that I am asking, is there no possibility of injury time of some kind if this happens again? I realise that these clauses have been overtaken, but none of us can be proud of the fact that the House of Commons has not looked at crucial clauses on a constitutional issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is in the hands of the House in these matters, because Committee stages are programmed. It is therefore up to the Committee to use the time wisely. I do have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because he may recall that, last night, I made the point that, if people spent a certain amount of time on one set of amendments or clauses, other matters would be neglected—but these are matters for the Committee, and I am sure that the Committee has heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.

Fireworks Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of any provision of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act, and

(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that it will by no means be controversial if I say that money resolutions attaching to private Members' Bills if anything deserve more consideration than those attaching to Government or public Bills; that is because of their origin and contents. I hope that we shall be treated to an explanation of the implications of the money resolution before us, and of those that we are to discuss later tonight. I say that especially with regard to the Fireworks Bill, because several elements in the Bill would give rise to expenditure about which the House should be told before we are asked to proceed further with these measures.
For example, clause 5 refers to prohibition of the supply, purchase and possession of fireworks of a specified description. I assume, although I confess that I am not acquainted with the details of the Bill, that that provision refers to functions of the type usually carried out by a trading standards officer—I can think of no one else who would perform them. Immediately, there is the clear implication that the number of trading standards officers would need to be increased to implement that part of the Bill.
The Bill also refers to prohibiting persons who are not satisfactorily trained or experienced in the use of fireworks, and are not covered by accident insurance, from purchasing or possessing fireworks. That also causes us to consider who would be in a position to police the Bill. It may indeed be the police, if not trading standards officers.
Clause 7 mentions licensed premises. The implication is that, if fireworks can be supplied or used only in licensed premises, someone, somewhere, must be policing—in the broadest sense of the word—the premises that are to be used.
Throughout the Bill runs the assumption that its rather tight regulatory provisions will be policed—I know not whether by trading standards officers, as I have suggested, or by Customs and Excise officers. If that is the case, and depending on the extent to which it is the case, the Bill clearly has substantial spending implications.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: As my right hon. Friend will have seen, considerable penalties are to be levied on people who contravene the provisions of the Bill, which implies some public education or training programme for the citizen. No doubt, for example, there will be an increase in the

number of people working in the citizens advice bureaux so that advice may be given before Guy Fawkes; that will end up as a charge on local authority finance.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Not only is he right to point out a possible increase in the number of people, say, in the advice bureaux, but he implies that there would have to be an advertising effort. This Government, like the previous Government, are keen to inform people about the implications of legislation of this kind, especially if people will be subject to a financial penalty or something worse. Therefore, there is an implication in the Bill of a likely expenditure on informing the public of its provisions and possible penalties.
That would be bad enough, but there is still the matter of compensation. However, I can find no reference to it in the Bill. I assume that we will get a detailed explanation of the matter before the House is asked to approve the money Resolution. Will the Government tell us what compensation is envisaged for small retailers carrying stocks of fireworks in good faith, that may overnight be rendered illegal by the provisions of the Bill?
Those are the smallest of businesses, family businesses and community businesses, which have stocked up with fireworks. Those are perfectly in order within the existing regulations, but may be quickly rendered illegal and subject to penalties by the Bill. Before we can contemplate approving the money resolution, we need to know how much money might be involved in the payment of compensation to those small retailers as a direct result of the Bill.
I am merely sketching out the possibilities. Goodness knows what would be involved, were I to go into detail, which I suspect that the House may not want at this stage. I simply wanted to give a flavour of the difficulties that I see arising from the Bill, however well-intentioned it may be. Numbers of police, trading standards officers and staff in citizens advice bureaux may have to be increased, and there will be expenditure on informing the public. As if to rub salt in the wound, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", we are told:
The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of such regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted.
That is not good enough. It is not good enough for legislation, particularly private Members' Bills, to be brought before the House and for us to be asked to give a blank cheque or a rubber stamp. When we come to the next items on the agenda—after we have thoroughly considered this one—hon. Members will see that the same argument applies with even more force. Time and again, under the heading money resolutions, the House is asked to vote indeterminate or unspecified sums for unspecified purposes contained in private Members' Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this stage we are debating a money resolution—singular. We are not dealing with money resolutions, just the money resolution before us, relating to the Fireworks Bill.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Martin. I am grateful for that guidance. I had strayed a little because I wanted to reinforce the point about the additional importance, as I


saw it, in private Members' Bills generally for us to be fully aware of and properly to scrutinise the money implications.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is right to consider general matters, but there is a particular matter that requires comment. Under the heading, "Effect of the Bill on public service manpower", it is stated:
The Bill will have no effect on central government staff numbers.
However, clause 10 includes provision
for the Secretary of State to recognise or license bodies for the purpose of providing training in the use of fireworks. Unless—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be firm. We are discussing the money resolution, not the Bill.

Mr. Forth: I imagine that my hon. Friend was implying that the provision of additional training personnel would have financial implications. [Interruption.] We need guidance on whether and how far the increased numbers of personnel—police, trading standards officers, training personnel or whatever—have financial implications. It is no good implying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must appeal to Members on the Treasury Bench to be quiet when an hon. Member is addressing the House.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assume that Members on the Treasury Bench are discussing the detailed response to the questions that my hon. Friends and I have raised. I look forward, therefore, to a more detailed and comprehensive reply as a result of their discussions, which I forgive.
I hope that I have persuaded the House that it is a key part of the Opposition's responsibilities properly to scrutinise such measures and to seek an explanation at this stage of what is in the Government's mind when they are asking us to vote this money before we proceed to approve it. That is what I am asking for in order that I may make my own judgment.

Mr. Robert Syms: I have similar concerns. If this measure has a monetary effect, will the Government compensate Poole borough council, which has a capping limit?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important point—the implication for local authorities of this measure. After all, trading standards officers are employees of local authorities, and many of the other enforcement mechanisms hinted at in the Bill will also fall to local authorities. In so far as they are capped, that suggests that at the very least there would have to be a reordering of priorities within local authorities. Which of the other local authorities' activities will have to be curtailed in order for them to implement the Bill? There may not be an increase in expenditure—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for

pointing that out: it may simply be that schools will have to be closed or refuse not to be collected in order for the legislation to be enforced.
There, in brief terms, are some of the questions that occur to me about which I want to be satisfied before I even consider giving the money resolution my consent.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): People who know the Conservative Government's record on fireworks will know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should hang his head in shame. Some five years ago, he stood at this Dispatch Box in my job and did absolutely nothing to promote firework safety.
The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors presided over a doubling of the number of fireworks injuries. The sad fact is that even in 1998 the Opposition have not learnt that money is not everything. We have had a tirade from the right hon. Gentleman, sadly supported by the new hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who I hope will learn better—

Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from your ruling that we are discussing the money aspect of the Bill, not the merits of the Bill. May we ask that the Minister addresses the money aspect?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a valid point. The Minister should keep his remarks to the money resolution.

Mr. Griffiths: All my remarks were concentrated on money—on an Opposition who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If the right hon. Gentleman, when he was adding up the so-called costs of the measure, had done as I did in the last firework campaign and visited people in hospital who had lost their fingers through firework injuries, he would not be talking now of the burdens of money. No amount of money will compensate the young man whom I visited in the midlands who has lost his fingers. He lost his fingers because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not only did nothing but did not care. They counted the pennies on everything and did not mind the fact that people were at risk because of their abysmal policies. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Opposition simply do not care about safety. They care only about the cost. They should hang their heads in shame. We, as the Government, are proud of the measures that we have taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of any provision of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act, and

(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

Stoke Mandeville Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to initiate a short debate on the future of Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency.
Stoke Mandeville is known nationally and internationally as the home of the national spinal injuries centre, but to people living in Aylesbury and the surrounding areas it is much more than that. It is a medium-sized acute hospital which serves the local population with a wide range of medical services. Its patients come from Buckinghamshire and parts of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire. The hospital also provides specialist services in plastic surgery and ophthalmics to patients from other parts of the country.
Many men and women are treated at Stoke Mandeville. Each year it treats about 32,000 in-patients. Some 140,000 people attend as out-patients, and about 44,000 people attend the accident and emergency unit. The need for the hospital is not diminishing—far from it. Its catchment area is growing significantly. That is particularly true of Aylesbury, where significant new residential development is planned over the next two decades, but it is also true of some of the smaller settlements served by Stoke Mandeville, such as Princes Risborough, in my constituency, and Haddenham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
There is strong local support for Stoke Mandeville and the work that it carries out. That will, perhaps, be signified tomorrow when, I am delighted to say, the Prime Minister's wife will visit the hospital to open the new computerised tomography scanner, which has been made possible by money raised through voluntary contributions and donations from local people.
If I feel strongly about the future of Stoke, it is not just because it is of vital importance to the people whom I represent but because it is my local hospital, the hospital where my four sons were born, and on which I and my family personally rely. Its medical reputation is high, but that is not matched by the quality of the buildings.
Stoke was originally built in 1942 to provide temporary wartime accommodation, and those wartime units are still substantially in use today. Since then, there has been piecemeal development of variable quality, but it has included some first-class modern facilities, notably the maternity unit, which is probably the part of the hospital with which I have become most familiar over the past few years.
One result of the piecemeal development is that we now have a hospital which sprawls over 90 acres of land. It is larger than most teaching hospitals in the country, probably in western Europe. Many of the buildings are obsolete, and the site and the buildings are inefficient. The costs of treatment at Stoke are inflated by the overheads: maintenance, heating, cleaning and others, which are needed because of the inefficiency and the obsolescence of the buildings.
There is not only financial inefficiency but clinical inefficiency. That is, perhaps, best illustrated by the example of the paediatric unit, which is a third of a mile

from the main operating theatres. It takes a minimum of several minutes to take a sick child from paediatrics to theatre, or to bring in staff or emergency equipment to the paediatric unit from elsewhere.
It is to the hospital's credit that, despite those handicaps, it has met both its financial and patient charter obligations year on year. I place on the record a tribute to all the hospital staff for that achievement. It is worth noting that the chief executive of Stoke Mandeville was asked by the regional office to chair the Anglia-Oxford working party on cutting waiting lists and ending bed blocking. Stoke's success in delivering high-quality medical care has been recognised by the NHS at regional level.
The need for redevelopment at Stoke Mandeville has been recognised since the 1970s. Various schemes have been proposed and, for different reasons, have foundered. At one time, the development of the new city of Milton Keynes and the urgency of its need for medical facilities took precedence in the decisions of the Government of the day. Subsequent schemes were shelved because of national financial pressures.

Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: No, but I should be happy to leave time for the hon. Gentleman to speak later.
Another scheme was approved by the Department in June 1994, but that in turn was delayed when the private finance initiative scheme was introduced. A still later scheme was delayed last year when the newly elected Government decided to alter the rules on PFI.
I mention all that not because I see much point in going over old ground in detail tonight, but because some account of the history is necessary to explain the depth of feeling among my constituents about the importance of a project that is now being promoted by the trust and Buckinghamshire health authority, and to explain the feeling of cynicism among hospital staff and local GPs, who doubt whether the much-needed redevelopment will ever happen.
I have had extensive discussions in recent months, not only with the trust management but with Buckinghamshire health authority, the chief funder of the hospital, and with the Oxford-Anglia regional office. I am grateful for the patience and courtesy with which all those concerned have always listened to my representations, and for the seriousness with which they have engaged in the arguments that I have put on behalf of my area. Both the regional office and Buckingham health authority have told me firmly that they are committed to the successful redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville hospital.
There seems to be local agreement on the continuing need for an acute hospital in Aylesbury, and on the fact that that requires the redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville. There is also recognition, acknowledged by the trust management as well as the health authority and the regional office, that the new Stoke Mandeville must reflect in its configuration changes in medical treatment that have taken place in recent years and are forecast to continue. Those include the trend towards day surgery and increased specialisation, and are illustrated by the implementation of, for example, the Calman report on cancer care.
Stoke is looking actively to develop constructive partnerships with other hospitals, both within Buckinghamshire and in Oxford and Milton Keynes. The present proposals, which were endorsed this week by Buckinghamshire health authority, would involve building a new paediatric unit, a new ward block and changes to the theatre complex at the hospital. The number of beds would be reduced from 510 to 443, but day case places would rise from 23 to 30.
The plans provide for the hospital to treat about the same number of patients in the future as it treats today. They incorporate a partnership agreement with South Buckinghamshire NHS trust and the Aylesbury Vale community healthcare trust. The total cost would be about £23.2 million. The changes would bring significant clinical and financial benefits. Clearly, our constituents who use Stoke Mandeville would benefit from the provision of modern facilities that can deliver state-of-the-art medical care into the 21st century. The national health service as a whole also stands to gain a significant financial benefit.
The proposed plans would release revenue savings of more than £3 million a year. I note that the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) are present. The release of revenue savings from a successful development at Stoke Mandeville is of vital importance to Buckinghamshire health authority if it is to meet its strategic commitment to shifting extra funding to GPs in Milton Keynes. Urban problems in that town have stimulated a need for medical care which has not been adequately met in the past.
Like the hon. Members who represent Milton Keynes, I will tussle over formulae and over my own patch, but it is recognised that Milton Keynes needs extra funding, and the release of those revenue savings is one way of achieving that objective.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the underfunding of Milton Keynes by about £4 million this year, as highlighted by the Buckinghamshire health authority, is justified? Does he recognise that mid-Buckinghamshire has been overfunded by about £5 million? He refers to the benefits for the whole of Buckinghamshire of the undoubted revenue savings from a developed Stoke Mandeville. Does he accept that it is important for Stoke Mandeville to be developed as part of the acute services strategy agreed by the health authority for all the hospitals in Buckinghamshire? The development of Stoke Mandeville should not create a hospital that is larger than the acute services strategy foresees, because that would entail continuing excess spending in mid-Buckinghamshire, which would prevent north Buckinghamshire from receiving the money.

Mr. Lidington: I agree with the hon. Lady's last point to some extent. The plan that has been endorsed by the trust management and by Buckinghamshire health authority is in line with that acute services strategy.
I would take issue with the hon. Lady over her assertion that mid-Buckinghamshire has been overfunded. This is not the occasion to go into the historical factors at work within the county and the application of the York formula to some county units. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for

Milton Keynes, North-East, and his predecessor, Mr. Peter Butler, argue the case passionately on behalf of Milton Keynes. Irrespective of what happens in the rest of Buckinghamshire, on the figures that I have seen, Milton Keynes has a good case for extra funding. As I said, the successful completion of the scheme at Stoke Mandeville is one way of helping to achieve that objective.
It is not only the revenue savings that are at stake. Surplus land worth £10 million at the minimum would be released by the redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville. That money could be ploughed back into health care either in our part of the country or elsewhere: that would be up to the Minister and his colleagues to decide. The NHS can ill afford to lose such a financial benefit. I hope that that entices the Minister and the regional office to look favourably on the scheme.
I want to put two brief questions to the Minister that he may reflect on if he cannot reply in detail now. The first is about the status of the £23.2 million bid. As I understand it, bids below a certain level fall to the regional office to decide, and bids above, perhaps at £25 million, must go to Ministers for a central decision. Can the Minister clarify that?
The second question is about interim strategic support, which was intended to tide Stoke Mandeville over until the rebuilding. It is due to end in 1999, and the earliest date at which new buildings can come into use is 2003.
Both the health authority and the regional office have told me that they continue to look actively for solutions. I hope that the Department will keep an open mind on whether to address the problem by arranging a deal with the potential private-sector partner, or to consider ways in which it and the NHS can cope with it. It is a real problem, but a time-limited one once the redevelopment is approved.
The original intention was that the sale of the land owned by the Department would part-fund the Stoke Mandeville project. I understand that that will not now happen, but I hope that it will still be possible for the departmental land to be developed in conjunction with the trust-owned land. Both parties might well benefit from a scheme that could take place at the same time, and be attractive to the same private-sector partner.
Finally, let me make a plea that, if it is humanly possible, work on the paediatric unit should be brought forward to the earliest possible date. I explained earlier about the particular needs of paediatric patients. I hope that, either through a deal involving the land or through the terms of the contract with the private-sector partner, we can find a way of advancing the provision of a modern paediatric unit much closer to the operating theatres.
I am grateful for the opportunity that I have been given. When my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I met the Minister last year, he listened to us with great courtesy and gave us a good deal of time. I thank him for his serious interest in the project in recent months, and I look forward to his reply.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Has the hon. Gentleman the permission of the Minister as well as that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)?

Mr. Bercow: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. What my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has said is entirely correct, both in relation to the hospital and in relation to the courtesy and attentiveness with which the Minister has greeted our representations.
Although Stoke Mandeville hospital is in my hon. Friend's constituency, it also serves my constituents. It is especially—although not exclusively—important to those living in the south of my patch, but all my constituents have a real interest in and commitment to the hospital, and will its development. They are right to do so, and I hope that that will prove possible.
My hon. Friend referred to the quality of Stoke Mandeville hospital. In 1995, the hospital secured the charter mark for excellence in public service, but that is only one demonstration of the quality that it has achieved. It would be inappropriate for me to allow my first Adjournment debate to pass without also saying that the chairman of the Stoke Mandeville NHS trust is a constituent of mine, Mrs. Gillian Miscampbell. Naturally, I consider her a person of the highest calibre. She is a superb chairman, and a long-standing resident of the area. She has its interests at heart, and I think that she has a real conception of the way in which the hospital should develop in the future.
There is no doubt that, although the hospital's management is excellent, its medical staff are first-class and the number of people for whom it caters is very large, it cannot progress without substantial and early redevelopment. The Minister is well aware of the background of disappointment, delay and frustration that the hospital and those who use its services have suffered to date, and I shall not rehearse that now; but the redevelopment is necessary, not merely for purposes of administrative or logistical efficiency, but to attain the primary objective of improved clinical care.
The project to which my hon. Friend devoted the thrust of his remarks is designed not least to improve paediatric care, coronary care and cancer services in the future.
I want those services to be developed, and to be developed in a manner that enables Stoke Mandeville to make substantial savings. My constituents want that to happen, and my hon. Friend wants it to happen. There is a need to go forward. I have observed that need not only in discussions with my hon. Friend and with the hospital management but by direct experience of observing the hospital at first hand on a number of visits.
I wish Stoke Mandeville well. I do not doubt the Minister's good faith, but I shall listen with great interest to his reply to the debate.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am delighted to have this opportunity to reply—my brief says to the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington); well, he is almost my hon. Friend—this debate. I also welcome the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) back from the dead, or at least from the Standing Committee considering the National Minimum Wage Bill. I congratulate him on all his work there. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Aylesbury on securing this debate, on a subject that is close not only to his heart but, as he explained, to those of his family and constituents.
Stoke Mandeville is a valued hospital serving the part of the world of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. It is valued not only by local people, but by the Government. As he will be aware, part of the Government's testimony of faith to Stoke Mandeville's future is the fact that we recently provided £2.2 million in additional funding for the Buckinghamshire health authority to meet the extra pressures of this winter. We have invested almost £200,000 in Stoke Mandeville to help it deal with emergency pressures.
As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, Stoke Mandeville is more than simply a hospital serving its local community. It is also a hospital with a very fine and distinguished international reputation in working with people who have suffered spinal injuries. For both those reasons, Stoke Mandeville's future is a subject that is worthy of debate. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to all the hard-working staff—the managers, clinicians and everyone else associated with the excellent work done there.
The future of district general hospitals such as Stoke Mandeville touches on much that is at the heart of the White Paper published last month by the Government. The White Paper sets out a 10-year programme of modernisation for the NHS. It particularly makes it clear that, in future, we want local hospitals to complement each other's activities, working in partnership rather than in competition.
I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that, from what I understand of the health authority's plans, its current acute services review says loudly and clearly that three acute hospitals are required now, and that they will be required in the health authority area for the foreseeable future. As she knows, the exact options, the exact configuration of services and the exact cash distribution are issues that are yet to be resolved. However, the future is clear for all three hospitals.
I am pleased that that spirit of partnership is already in evidence in Buckinghamshire—where trusts are co-operating with the health authority and with local family doctors, and where there is an interchange of expertise at the clinical level and, particularly, at the consultant level. The hon. Member for Aylesbury talked about the relationship between Stoke Mandeville and the Radcliffe in Oxford. We want such partnerships to continue.
Stoke Mandeville will undoubtedly have to evolve in the next few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West said, its services will have to fit into a wider model to ensure the best use of resources while providing the best possible care standards.
I tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury that Stoke Mandeville is a hospital with a bright future. It has the strong support of its local population and of the Government. He kindly mentioned that, tomorrow, the wife of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will visit the hospital to open the new CT scanner suite, which was paid for by charitable funds. I pay tribute to all those involved in that fund-raising activity.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, some changes are long overdue. The sooner we can see the end of the wartime prefabricated huts, the better. The trek of about a third of a mile from the children's ward to the operating


theatre is quite unacceptable in a modern health service. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made strong representations in the past.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the history of Stoke Mandeville in terms of capital development has been unhappy for a variety of reasons. The most recent attempt could not be approved, as the trust did not have a private sector partner when the Government decided to fast-track the more viable private finance initiative projects. As he knows, that strategy has paid dividends, with a stream of PFI hospitals now under way.
I understand that the health authority is fully committed to having three acute hospitals in the county and that the trust, together with the health authority and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, supported by the NHS Executive regional office, is putting together a strategic outline case for a £23 million development. It will get rid of the Canadian forces' huts and replace them with facilities fit for delivering health services in the next century.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the process for approving the bid. He will know that the capital value of the bid is about £23.3 million, which is below the £25 million limit above which major capital projects are now being prioritised on a national basis by the new capital prioritisation advisory group which I set up last December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, NHS need will be the driving force and the key criterion for the work of the CPAG. The group will assess schemes fairly, on a national basis, according to rigorous common criteria. Those approved will be the schemes with the highest NHS need on a national basis.
As the new Stoke Mandeville proposal now has a capital value of less than £25 million, approval is a matter for the Anglia and Oxford regional office of the NHS Executive. However, I should reassure the hon. Member that the region is using the same rigorous and fair CPAG methodology to consider the scheme. The developing

business case has been the subject of extensive discussion with the regional office, which has been closely involved from the outset, and the final strategic outline case is expected at the regional office around the end of this month. That should allow a decision to be taken about approval by the end of next month. If the case gets approval, the trust will be able to advertise for bids from the private sector in the summer. I hope that there will be pretty speedy progress, but that will depend on the trust being able to attract a viable private sector partner. If it does, I hope that it will proceed pretty rapidly—good luck to it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of land. He should realise that the proceeds of any sale of land on the site belonging to the Secretary of State will be employed in the capital development programme by the regional office, and will be redistributed to any suitable schemes in the region. That may well include the Stoke Mandeville redevelopment, but it cannot be a foregone conclusion that the proceeds will necessarily be partially or wholly reinvested in the redevelopment of the hospital site.
There is no doubt there will be a local acute hospital for the people of Aylesbury well into the next millennium. In future, if there are specific proposals for changing the services provided at Stoke Mandeville, there will be proper, open consultation, to which I am sure the hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends will make a valuable contribution.
As I am running out of time, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's other questions in writing. In the meantime, we hope to be able to announce the first stages of a much-needed redevelopment of a precious NHS hospital as part of the 50th anniversary of the national health service. I can think of nothing more fitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.